Beginner's guide to "death by Juice" from parlays.
-
-
Man every vid you do, is just awesome! Great stuff man.Comment -
awesome, love all of your vids...thanks for the knowledgeComment -
Solid math. Thanks.Comment -
301 over 1024 !
Comment -
Solid video once again Mr.Justin
Comment -
Justin,
Another great video...
DocComment -
nie videoComment -
Justin,
What do you mean by bookmaker giving true odds? I dont see that advertised on SBR's review or the site....Comment -
They pay by the math. At -110
2 pays +264
3 pays +596
4 pays +1228
many places rip you off on 4 paying +1000, and it gets worse from there.Comment -
Ill go back and check, but I thought the review does not show those types of odds...Originally posted by Doug
Yeah, SBR shows 10/1 on 4 teamers....so WTF?Comment -
You're right, that is an error.Originally posted by JcozComment -
Great vid...Comment -
great video man. LOL, i still love playing parlays, i love to play ones when the NFL NBA and NHL seasons are going. like on thursday or saturday in play 4 games on the NHL or NBA when they have alot of games on and usually parlay those 4 with another 2 NFL games on that Sunday. Many times i went into Sunday with a live ticket on those last 2 NFL games. It's fun!Comment -
If you bet parlays through the "parlay" selection on the main menu, Cris pays true odds on them. If you use parlay cards, they use the ripoff retail price.
Friends don't let friends do parlays.Comment -
He used Greek odds, not CRIS/ Bookmaker odds. I think 5Dimes pays by the math also.Originally posted by Jcoz
A few places offer -105 in parlays, so 2 teams is something like +280, and 3 are near +650.
Bettrojan is one such book, I think Vegasvic would also do this... but they are new and unproven.
I don't suggest going beyond 3 teams in a parlay no matter what, but never take 10-1 on 4, or go beyond 3 at a shop that starts to shortpay at 4 teams.
Old school pays are:
+260 on two
+600 on three
That's OK, many still use this, shorting a small amount on two, and "overpaying" a small amount on three teams... but not really since +700 is no juice, some books used to offer this but failed ( BOS, BCN,Lazerwager).
Don't parlay unless you have a reason to do so ( like some correlation between events).
Most players would do well to totally forget parlays, but some know how to gain an advantage with related bets. Even that is risky, as the book can later cancel them if they are unethical ( sportsbook.com).
I was totally nitpicking Justin with the 300/301 comment.
Comment -
Are the lines the same on cards ?Originally posted by Justin7Comment -
Like betting Kelly?Don't parlay unless you have a reason to do soComment -
Awesome piece of advice for us beginners
Comment -
Originally posted by donjuan
Yes, I guess that's fair. I can't say to myself.... "Self" this is a 58% chance of winning bet. I can't be that confident, that I can nail it that close, that's why I can't buy a tout that likes one bet for 30X more than another, even if they do ( like a prop), you can't get enough on it.
Sure there's a prop once in awhile that's way off, but a $100 player can't put 3k on a prop with a $200 limit.Comment -
I'd dispute your terminology again, Justin, like I did in Vegas with true count, and running count.Originally posted by Justin7
I'd rather use the term" running odds" over "true odds". True implies ( to me) no vig.Comment -
I didn’t care for this one. Instead of taking the opportunity to debunk a common bit of erroneous “folk wisdom” (“parlays are for suckers”), it actually endorses it.
The implication that conventional odds parlays are twice as disadvantageous to players as straight bets is highly misleading if not false. Due to rounding, they tend to be either a miniscule amount worse than straight bets (e.g., 2-teamers at +260) or a miniscule amount better (e.g., 3-teamers at +600).
Let’s use a less misleading illustration than in the video.
You want to bet on Team A in one game, and Team B in another. Assume no edge, just a 50% chance of each team winning.
Scenario Number one, you risk $110 to win $100 each on straight bets on A and B.
25% of the time you will win both, for a profit of $200.
50% of the time you will split them, for a loss of $10.
25% of the time you will lose both, for a loss of $220.
(.25 * $200) + (.5 * -$10) + (.25 * -$220) = -$10.00
Scenario Number two, you risk $110 on a 2-team parlay of A and B.
25% of the time you will win both, for a profit of $286.
75% of the time you will lose at least one leg, for a loss of $110.
(.25 * $286) + (.75 * -$110) = -$11.00
So a one dollar edge to the straight bettor.
If you run the same kind of numbers for a 3-team parlay, the results are:
Three straight bets: -$15.00
3-team parlay: -$13.75
So a similarly small edge to the parlay bettor.
I don’t fault the video for oversimplifying. It’s brief and it’s mostly for beginners, so it can’t be expected to explore every possible nuance about straight betting versus parlay betting (like shopping for better than -110 for straight bets or for better than conventional odds for parlays, or looking to parlay events that are subtly correlated, or why Kelly includes parlay bets as a way of maximizing bankroll growth, etc.), even though these are all legitimate issues that one would want to consider when examining whether it’s wise or not to bet parlays.
I do fault it though for its false conclusion that bettors should avoid parlays because the house has you at twice as much of a disadvantage than if you made straight bets instead.Comment -
TLD: Nice rebuttal argument, I agree. Laying -110 in two teamers ( at +260)is nearly equal vig to straights at -110, as you only get shorted the difference between +260 and +264, or maybe you get the "true" +264, or even +280, even a true "true" +300 if you're book does +700 on 3 teams, and you know how to manipulate that, but I think those are gone.
Comment -
Another thought on this:
If you somehow knew that your bets would hit at 55%, or 57%,or 58% or higher.... then you'd want to parlay them over str8 betting them. You'd do better that way. Conversely if you knew they would hit 45% or so, then you'd lose less str8 betting instead of parlaying.
To be fair to Justin, his video is geared towards less experienced players, and his don't parlay advice is correct for the audience.Comment -
Not if your goal is to optimally grow your bankroll. While the EV is higher on parlays compared to straight bets, the optimal play is a combination of parlay and straight bets (assuming no positive or negative correlation) as Ganchrow's Kelly calculator confirms.
If you somehow knew that your bets would hit at 55%, or 57%,or 58% or higher.... then you'd want to parlay them over str8 betting them. You'd do better that way. Conversely if you knew they would hit 45% or so, then you'd lose less str8 betting instead of parlaying.Comment -
A goal if mine is to help people not lose money. The guys who see the exceptions don't need it - they are probably already winners, and use parlays properly. But most people who play parlays are throwing away more money than they need to for their "entertainment".Comment -
Disagree.
I don’t think it’s only true for sharps that +600 is better for a 3-teamer than three separate bets at -110. Or that +260 is only infinitesimally worse for a 2-teamer than two separate bets at -110.
I think it’s just as true for recreational, dumb-as-a-stump, betting-for-entertainment, squares who are flipping coins and betting blindly.
The math in the video is misleading for all audiences, not just for sophisticated bettors who’ve discovered some subtle advantage of playing parlays in rare circumstances.Comment -
Take it as how it was meant to be delivered, IMO. Even though Justin can be technically wrong at times. He aimed at Newbies, and is overall solid in his advice, he went simple, and his advice is decent. A decent overall presentation,IMO. A few minor errors in it, but no biggie.Originally posted by TLD
I know he ( Justin) is an attorney. I don't think I'd hire him to represent me in a criminal case, I'd want a real nitpicker pulling every minor crap point , in my favor.
This is not the same thing, it's very general in nature.Comment -
Let me be clear. If you don't win every year at sports betting, you shouldn't be betting parlays.Originally posted by TLD
Lots of people think they are sharp. They see that +600 is better than consecutively betting your winnings on 3 plays. They think they're getting the best of it this way.
They're not. Most "quasi sharps" simply have no clue. Never mind risk management. Never mind unit sizing. Never mind edge evaluation.
If you don't win every year, you simply have no business betting parlays, except for fun. If you're betting for fun, accept that and play fewer parlays.Comment -
“If you don't win every year, you simply have no business betting parlays, except for fun. If you're betting for fun, accept that and play fewer parlays.”
Insofar as that is good advice, it’s equally good advice for straight bets, teasers, props, or anything else. The attempt in the video to distinguish parlays in that respect fails.
I do like the videos in general though. This one was poorly conceived, but I think most or all of the others were well done for their intended audience.Comment -
TLD, the main "benefit" of betting the parlays in your example is that the bettor is simply risking less money, so even with the lower ROI, he's losing less money. To the absurd extreme, if a player can bet $110 on a 30-team parlay including a past-posted loser, he's still better off betting that (EV -$110) than betting 30 coinflip sides for $110 each (EV -$150).Comment -
I understand what you’re saying Tom.Originally posted by tomcowley
But if the example is changed to where the person has a 53% or 55% or whatever chance of being right on his picks, wouldn’t the math still come out very similar for the straight bettor and the parlay bettor?
So I don’t think it’s just a matter of you lose about the same when you lose, but also you win about the same when you win. I see how betting less because you’re betting in less favorable conditions could explain the former, but how would it explain the latter?
I don’t know that my example was the best way to illustrate the point that (contrary to the implications of Justin’s video), conventional odds such as +260 for 2-team parlays and +600 for 3-team parlays are barely a smidgen above or below their -110 straight bet equivalents and so do not build in an additional mathematical disadvantage for the player.
Would there be a better example to show that?
Or if I’m wrong, and those parlay odds really are disadvantageous to the bettor compared to -110 straight plays, what should the parlay odds be instead to eliminate that disadvantage, and what is a good example to illustrate that?Comment -
I think ( I'm nearly positive of it) the math would say that if you "knew" the plays stood a 55% chance of winning individually... then the parlays would be better, long-term. ( assuming standard parlay odds and -110 on straight bets). In fact anything over break-even at -110 ( 52.38%), then the parlays should be better... over time... but more volatile.Originally posted by TLDComment -
EV-wise and ROI-wise, parlays just magnify your advantage/disadvantage. If you're exactly breakeven -110, then you'll be exactly breakeven betting true odds parlays too. If you have an edge, your ROI is higher on parlays (EG is a different animal, of course). If you have a disadvantage, parlays will have a more negative ROI.Comment -
Yes, I recall that mathematically the farther you deviate—in either direction—from the break even point, gradually the results for the straight bettor and the parlay bettor diverge.
But betting parlays is not like betting into -120 or -130 odds instead of standard -110 odds. It’s not like books just adding extra juice like that. Because if it were, then the results would be worse for the parlay bettor across the board, and that’s not what we see.
That’s why I think this video is misleading and I would not recommend it to a newbie hoping to understand parlays better, whereas I would recommend the other videos I’ve seen of Justin’s.Comment
