[TheProfitcy]

Hey Folks,
I'm new here at SBR (clearly). A co-worker of mine who is what I would very much consider a pro told me about arb and Kelly Criterion. He sent me here to check out some posts from Ganchrow (who I guess is gone now?). He claims that he and his brother have made a huge bankroll just off of their betting. After looking around here, I don't doubt it. What he told me made it seem a lot like trading options in the financial markets. We have our own form of arbitrage. I've read Ganchrow's posts on EV + EG and both parts of the Kelly Criterion. While the math is mind numbing, the principle is clear. I'm lacking on taking the knowledge and applying it to successful betting and sizes. Sports betting is completely new to me (despite living in Vegas). Texas Hold 'Em is my only gambling knowledge. I usually play a tables, just using pot odds and calculating outs really. I played briefly online at Bovada with some half decent HUD until they got rid of their poker service. That being said, I'm a bit lost at this point and hoping for some guidance. All help is appreciated.

-TheProfitcy

[Optional]

Hey Folks,
I'm new here at SBR (clearly). A co-worker of mine who is what I would very much consider a pro told me about arb and Kelly Criterion. He sent me here to check out some posts from Ganchrow (who I guess is gone now?). He claims that he and his brother have made a huge bankroll just off of their betting. After looking around here, I don't doubt it. What he told me made it seem a lot like trading options in the financial markets. We have our own form of arbitrage. I've read Ganchrow's posts on EV + EG and both parts of the Kelly Criterion. While the math is mind numbing, the principle is clear. I'm lacking on taking the knowledge and applying it to successful betting and sizes. Sports betting is completely new to me (despite living in Vegas). Texas Hold 'Em is my only gambling knowledge. I usually play a tables, just using pot odds and calculating outs really. I played briefly online at Bovada with some half decent HUD until they got rid of their poker service. That being said, I'm a bit lost at this point and hoping for some guidance. All help is appreciated.

-TheProfitcy

It's hard to understand exactly what you are looking for by saying you understand arbitrage but not the application. Maybe try to expand a little bit?

I've linked your thread to the Handicapper Thinktank forum too.

[phil_abuster]

ok. wanting to help, if possible, but its somewhat unclear specifically what u are asking for
please b more specific.

as for kelly criterion, well there r pros and cons. very little in gambling is guaranteed money other than arbs.
my analysis shows the kelly criterion (basically increasing bet size when winning, decreasing when losing) seems ok on surface but the truth is *IF* you get off to a winning start youre probably fine but if u get off to a losing start --> you're screwed.

[Optional]

my analysis shows the kelly criterion (basically increasing bet size when winning, decreasing when losing) seems ok on surface but the truth is *IF* you get off to a winning start youre probably fine but if u get off to a losing start --> you're screwed.

Kelly bet sizing has zero relationship to a winning record.

It's based on the calculated edge of each discreet bet only.

You should read this wiki article to get the basics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Ganchrow threads, which the OP mentions, are also very useful in learning how to apply it too: http://www.sportsbookreview.com/foru...4-threads.html

[phil_abuster]

Kelly bet sizing has zero relationship to a winning record.

It's based on the calculated edge of each discreet bet only.

yes.
but.....as i mentioned, if i begin a 100 bet sample, with assumed 55% win expectation on each and every one of those 100 bets, but say i get off to an 0-10 start using the kelly criterion my bet sizes are now significantly smaller and i still only have a 55% chance of winning all succeeding bets - though now at a lower wager sum.
by comparison with flat betting of the same initial size i would come out behind.
otoh, if betting kelly i get off to a rousing 10-0 start i would come out ahead of the flat bettor because those winners have effectively elevated my wager size (as my br increases) and as a result of betting LARGER it follows i would make more $$ even though the odds of winning any succeeding bet remains at only 55%.
bet more, win more
bet less, win less.
thus the START could determine whether or not i continue by either betting more or betting less on all the remaining 55% matches.
or at least this is my understanding of the kelly principle.
i could be wrong.
open to learning improved methods *IF* not complicated

[Optional]

I see your point I guess but don't necessarily agree flat betting is better in that situation. I'm not certain there is any staking plan that is going to put us in a great position if we start with a 0-10 run.

Risk of ruin is there using full Kelly but there is no better way to maximize potential profits.

[phil_abuster]

Risk of ruin is there using full Kelly but there is no better way to maximize potential profits.

---
thanks. i appreciate your comments.

however, regarding your last statement i will submit there is an even better method to "maximize potential profits" than kelly - although the application may be limited frequently, and there r two caveats.

otherwise 3 team parlays are significantly better when available!

and to a lesser extent 2 team parlays as well.

but those 2 caveats??

1) a signicantly increased "risk of ruin" (although not a big concern to a small stakes bettor depending on br size, OR one w/ a very large br)
2) one MUST have a win expectation above 52.4 % on all sports/bet types that would form those parlays!

the "consistent winner" who bets 3 team parlays is likely to profit w/ an ROI at least double and even triple that of a flat bettor. and though i havent done the specific math on kelly i doubt it would approach those numbers (provided those caveats r met in regards to all parlays )

[tsty]

yes.
but.....as i mentioned, if i begin a 100 bet sample, with assumed 55% win expectation on each and every one of those 100 bets, but say i get off to an 0-10 start using the kelly criterion my bet sizes are now significantly smaller and i still only have a 55% chance of winning all succeeding bets - though now at a lower wager sum.
by comparison with flat betting of the same initial size i would come out behind.
otoh, if betting kelly i get off to a rousing 10-0 start i would come out ahead of the flat bettor because those winners have effectively elevated my wager size (as my br increases) and as a result of betting LARGER it follows i would make more $$ even though the odds of winning any succeeding bet remains at only 55%.
bet more, win more
bet less, win less.
thus the START could determine whether or not i continue by either betting more or betting less on all the remaining 55% matches.
or at least this is my understanding of the kelly principle.
i could be wrong.
open to learning improved methods *IF* not complicated

well what happens when you have a +400 bet and a -200 bet or a +220 bet then?

you are just losing money betting the same unit in these situations even if they have the same edge

[phil_abuster]

well what happens when you have a +400 bet and a -200 bet or a +220 bet then?

you are just losing money betting the same unit in these situations even if they have the same edge

much easier w/ ATS
but for ml would have to pre-calculate the comparable ROI and be certain it is the same or better, determine the true odds of a win, and adjust bet size accordingly.
**however, my statement is intended to imply betting ATS (sides or totals) not ML.
if one is a ML bet winner, then he should probably bet ML the same as always.
but if one is an ATS bet winner, 3-team parlays r more profitable (higher ROI) than typical flat betting and likely much better than kelly criterion, when such parlays r available, and only when satisfying my caveats above.

[Cookie Monster]

Parlay ROI is affected on how do you compute the risked amount. For example, lets say you like three +100 bets, you can parlay them risking 1 unit to win 7 units, or can let them ride manually, risk 1 on first bet, if it wins risk 2 on 2nd leg, and if it wins risk 4 on 3rd leg. Both ways amount is exactly to the same, but in the first case you only risked 1, in the second one risked 7. But if you tell anyone that the parlay is better due to higher ROI, you would be laughed off.

Parlays have other problems, most importantly you are forced to place all three bets at the same book at the same time, likely unable to shop for the absolute best price on each leg.

Don't get me wrong, parlays have their uses. But artificially lowering the risked amount to claim a higher ROI is not one of them.

[phil_abuster]

Parlay ROI is affected on how do you compute the risked amount. For example, lets say you like three +100 bets, you can parlay them risking 1 unit to win 7 units, or can let them ride manually, risk 1 on first bet, if it wins risk 2 on 2nd leg, and if it wins risk 4 on 3rd leg. Both ways amount is exactly to the same, but in the first case you only risked 1, in the second one risked 7. But if you tell anyone that the parlay is better due to higher ROI, you would be laughed off.

Parlays have other problems, most importantly you are forced to place all three bets at the same book at the same time, likely unable to shop for the absolute best price on each leg.

Don't get me wrong, parlays have their uses. But artificially lowering the risked amount to claim a higher ROI is not one of them.

hence my implication as stated that 3 team parlays applies to ATS (sides or totals) NOT ML.
they are more profitable than flat betting or kelly criterion (assuming my caveats r satisfied), not specifically because the ROI is in fact higher (it is) but rather due to the conclusive math. the ROI is simply an indicator of better value as well.
as previously stated 3 team parlyas r better value, but the practical application is not always readily available (as u pointed out)
still - when available - 3 team parlays r better (provided the 2 key caveats noted earlier r satisfied)

[Hareeba!]

hence my implication as stated that 3 team parlays applies to ATS (sides or totals) NOT ML.
they are more profitable than flat betting or kelly criterion (assuming my caveats r satisfied), not specifically because the ROI is in fact higher (it is) but rather due to the conclusive math. the ROI is simply an indicator of better value as well.
as previously stated 3 team parlyas r better value, but the practical application is not always readily available (as u pointed out)
still - when available - 3 team parlays r better (provided the 2 key caveats noted earlier r satisfied)

I'd like to see that "conclusive math" please.

[phil_abuster]

I'd like to see that "conclusive math" please.

ok.
it will take a while to compose and type so check back in an hour or later
keep in mind my repeated caveats for implimenting parlays: ONLY applies to those w/ >53% expectation and playing a small percentage of BR (or have a very large BR) to reduce "risk of ruin" as well as the parlays themselves r not always readily available (ie. a person may have only ONE good play that day!)
typing

[phil_abuster]

there r 2 parts to this discussion of 3 team parlays:
1/ the math, showing they r indeed better value (provided caveats r satisfied)
2/ the actual application of them


Reminder my all important caveats:
no system of wagering (other than arbitrage) will guarantee that a LOSER better will become profitable.
not Kelly criterion (as per this thread) and not parlays.
my statement was that 3 team parlays r better "value" for increasing profitability compared to Kelly criterion or flat betting (which of course implies we r speaking ONLY of profitability in the first place, ie. a consistent winning capper.
this discussion is limited to those w/ > 53% win rate expectation!

my illustration is to show the the math and prove the "value" of 3 team parlays.
remember: this will NOT apply to the average capper (<52.4% expectancy over time)

to illustrate the math it makes it easier to assume 300 picks - regardless whether these r 300 in a week or spread over 2 years.
once we see the math-value, it will be understood that the value is inherently applicable
regardless the actual timeline.


this illustration will assume 55% win expectancy
3 team parlays will assume standard 6:1 odds (ATS sides & totals) compared to flat-bettting standard 110/100 odds.


FLAT betting: risking $100 to win $90.91
3 team Parlays: risking $100 to win $600

300 flat bets at 55% win rate = 165 win / 135 lose
165 wins x $90.91 = +$15,000 (rounded)
135 losses x $100 = - $13,500

*** NET profit ---> +$1,500 (from $30,000 risked)
ROI is .05 = 5 %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

exact same 300 picks grouped randomly into 100 x 3 team parlays
the win rate on 3 team parlays is determined by: .55% X .55% X .55%
= 16.64% of 100 parlays will win and 83.36% of 100 parlays will lose
*note: in theory "risk of ruin" is HIGH, but in practice it is not!

16.64 winners x $600 = +$9,984
83.36 losers x $100 = - $8,336

*** NET profit ---> +$1,648 (from $10,000 risked)
ROI is .1648 = 16.5 %

PART A:
$1,648 parlay-profit is higher than $1,500 flat-bet profit, by $148, which is 9.8% BETTER!
and the ROI is more than 3 times better than flat betting!
right here we see the simple math proves 3 team parlays r more profitable by a significant margin (assuming the >53% winning expectation on all picks)

PART B:
but if you're really astute u will see one MAJOR flaw in that illustration.
if u r thinking, "wait-a-minute phil, this is NOT an accurate comparison of value because the gross amounts put at risk for the same 300 picks r not equated!" -- then u would b absolutely correct!

flat betting would be putting at risk $100 ea. x 300 = $30,000
while grouping those into 3 team parlays would risk only $10,000 (but still a 9.8% BETTER payoff!)

it is ludicrous to suggest comparing profit outcomes when one side of the experiment is betting 3 x the amount!
if you and i both win at 55% but i wager 3 x your bet size, naturally my profits will be much better than yours.
so obviously that would NOT be a fair nor proper comparison!

for proper comparisons of "value" we MUST equate the amounts put at risk on each side!
for parlays to risk the same $30,000 gross as flat betting 300 picks,
each of 100 parlays would be bet at $300 (not just $100)

.....so the math continues:
3 team parlays now @ $300 ea. = $1,800 per win

16.64 winners x $1,800 = $29,952
83.36 losers x $300 ea = $25,008

***NET profit --> +$4,944 (from same $30,000 risked!!!)

so when the risk amounts r equated for the same 300 picks,
the accurate math shows parlays gain $4,944 profit compared to just $1,500.
which is better??

profit is 9.8% better in PART A when risking only one third the amount of the flat bets
but it is 329% better in PART B when equating the same amounts risked - which is the proper way to compare.

DISCUSSION points:

the math proves 3 team parlays - provided a positive winning expectaion - is significantly better, period.

but yes, there r considerations for actually implimenting them.
one obvious one is we cant always find 3 good bets to form into a parlay, nor at the same book!
true, but irrelevent.
in all those cases, just flat-bet as usual.
neverthess, when they r available the better value of a 3 team parlay still holds!
a winning capper is always getting better value by grouping his good picks into 3 team parlays - regardless whether he can form multiple parlays each week or just one per week for the next 2 years! value is value. it doesnt matter how often u can do it - just that when the opportunity arrives it is always better value (assuming >53% win expectation)
similar to arbs: they don't occur frequently either, but when they do they r always good value!

second, is "risk of ruin"
in my first post i noted this in my caveats.
in theory there is a significantly higher risk w/parlays (3s or 2s) simply because the win rate is much lower.
true. in theory.
however, as noted immediately above, this is a non-sequitur in practical application since it is extremely unlikely that a winning capper can actually form enough 3 team parlays on any given day or week to be a significant hazard to his bankroll! in practical application one might compose only a few 3 team parlays in a given week compared with scores of other picks that he flat bets. therefore theres simply no significant "risk of ruin" in practical application (only in theory)
however if on a busy saturday of college hoops a consistent winning capper finds numerous good bets, he can still group them into 3 team parlays (even round robin) and allay most of the "risk of ruin" simply by betting as in PART A above (betting 1/3 the amount that flat betting would) yet still gain at least 9.8% better value w/no significant rise in "risk of ruin" from the limited number of 3 team parlays formed. in all likelyhood one will be flat betting over 79% of his picks w/ very few 3 team parlays available on a daily or weekly basis. but even those few parlays - when available - still provide better value, as the math proves, w/no significant increase in "risk of ruin."

third, gotta have over 53% expectation for winning.
must be certain!
my illustration above uses a modest 55% but the math is still MORE profitable between 53% and 54.9% and much, MUCH better when a capper wins at higher than 55% consistently.
in fact it gets just gawdy at 60% and up. OMG!
but the key: consistency in winning must already b apparent!
i simply cannot emphasize this enough.
month after month and season after season, that >53% win expectation MUST be evident!
unfortunately this will not apply to most here and the overwhelming majority of cappers everywhere.
BUT if u ARE a winning capper(ATS sides and totals ) youre a fool NOT to form 3 team parlays when available.
the math proves its better value than flat betting and i submit better than Kelly criterion too in cases where a winning capper has numerous good picks at one book (though not on the days when a winning capper has only one or 2 picks - then Kelly is obviously better since a 3 team parlay is impossible)
2 team parlays r also better value than flat betting, but less so than 3 team.

however, if one is NOT a consistent winner month after month and season after season (with ATS bets and with totals) and misunderstands all this by thinking that simply by forming 3 team parlays he will improve his bottom line: he is badly mistaken!!
in fact, when we do the math for a resulting 51% winner we will see that his losses accelerate faster than flat betting!
playing 3 team parlays (or using Kelly criterion) will NOT make u a winning capper nor give u a winning bottom line.
u must already BE a winning capper to make use of either of these tools for increased profitability above just the usual flat betting.

Inotherwords, if u and i have the SAME win expectation (over 53%) and bet the same picks at the same book for the same amount, but i flat-bet all my picks, compared to u flat-betting 80% of the same pics but forming 3 team parlays on the other 20% of your picks, then YOU would definitely have a better bottom line at the end of the season than me!!
u dont need to form parlays from every daily pick - just whenever u can --> *IF* u r already a winning capper with a win expectation on all your picks of over 53%

reiterating: for a bonafide WINNING ATS & totals capper, there is greater profit value/outcome in the long run forming a 3 team parlay whenever he can do so (regardless how frequent OR infrequent that might be) rather than flat betting those same picks. the math proves it. and of course one may also do both.

thus endth the lesson

[Hareeba!]

What all that boils down to is that parlaying 3 bets at +600 gives a better overall result that taking them individually at -110.

It's not the fact that parlaying as such produces the better result but that the odds you can get for the parlay at some bookmakers.

If, instead of taking -110 for the individual bets, you were to get -108 then it would beat the +600 for the parlays.

Fortunately I can almost always get better odds than that for my spread and total bets, averaging more like -104.

[Hareeba!]

Now turning to the application of Kelly:

If betting at +600 on 3 team parlays where you rate each leg at 55%, you should be staking 2.7% of your bank.

If betting the teams individually at -110 you should be staking 5.5% of your bank on each.

That's at "full" Kelly, which of course is generally not regarded as suitable for gambling as the likelihood of total loss is too great. Better to work to no more than one-fifth Kelly.

[phil_abuster]

What all that boils down to is that parlaying 3 bets at +600 gives a better overall result that taking them individually at -110.
It's not the fact that parlaying as such produces the better result but that the odds you can get for the parlay at some bookmakers.

If, instead of taking -110 for the individual bets, you were to get -108 then it would beat the +600 for the parlays.

nope, youre totally wrong.


the math (shown above) for 300 picks grouped into 3 team parlays and wagering the same gross amount as flat betting those same 300 picks remains,

3 team parlays @ $300 ea. = $1,800 per win
16.64 winners x $1,800 = +$29,952
83.36 losers x $300 ea = -$25,008

**NET profit = +$4,944 (from same $30,000 risked!!!)


and the math for those same 300 picks at -108/100 odds is as follows:

FLAT betting: 108/100 = $92.60 per win (instead of just $90.91 per win)
300 flat bets at 55% win rate = 165 win / 135 lose
165 wins x $92.60 = +$15,279
135 losses x $100 = - $13,500

**NET profit = +$1,779 (from same $30,000 risked!!)
ROI is .059 = 5.9 %

$4,944 parlay-profit is still waaay better than $1,779 by a whopping 280%
thus, wagering the SAME AMOUNT on either 3 flat bets ($300) OR one 3 team parlay ($300) -- which is the only proper way for comparison -- still yields vastly better results for your parlay! even 2 teamers r better!
even if u got -102 odds on ALL YOUR PICKS (LOL) putting any 3 picks into a parlay at 6:1 is still waaaaaaay better profit over time! (provided one is a bonafide CONSISTENT winning capper above 53% w/ATS & totals)

[Hareeba!]

One of us had best go back to school!

[phil_abuster]

One of us had best go back to school!

dont be so hard on yourself dude.
maybe simple arithmetic isnt your strong suit.

IF one is a bonafide consistent winner on ATS & totals bets week after week and season after season he can choose to bet however he wishes.
however, given the simple math any 6th grader can understand, a bonafide WINNING capper would increase his profits significantly over time if he forms 3 team parlays among his winning picks as often as he can.

[Hareeba!]

dont be so hard on yourself dude.
maybe simple arithmetic isnt your strong suit.

IF one is a bonafide consistent winner on ATS & totals bets week after week and season after season he can choose to bet however he wishes.
however, given the simple math any 6th grader can understand, a bonafide WINNING capper would increase his profits significantly over time if he forms 3 team parlays among his winning picks as often as he can.

Arithmetic has always been my strongest subject.
The more a winning player bets the more he's going to win.
Think about it.

[phil_abuster]

Arithmetic has always been my strongest subject.

this is not evident from your post.
ive laid out the simple math, and it is accurate.

The more a winning player bets the more he's going to win.
Think about it.

yes. so what???

in my illustration the math illustrates the results of betting 3 picks for $300
compared w/ betting those same 3 picks in a parlay for the SAME $300.
neither method is wagering more than the other! they both wager $300.
now U think about that

[Hareeba!]

this is not evident from your post.
ive laid out the simple math, and it is accurate.



yes. so what???

in my illustration the math illustrates the results of betting 3 picks for $300
compared w/ betting those same 3 picks in a parlay for the SAME $300.
neither method is wagering more than the other! they both wager $300.
now U think about that

No intelligent punter would regularly risk the same stake on a 16.6375% chance as he would on a 55% chance.

[phil_abuster]

No intelligent punter would regularly risk the same stake on a 16.6375% chance as he would on a 55% chance.

then u have COMPLETELY misread my essay above.

there will be very few WEEKLY opportunities to form 3 team parlays, inspite of the massive payoff potential to a WINNING Capper. risk of ruin in practical application (not theory) disolves into a non-sequitor.

the math proves forming 3 team parlays whenever possible is SIGNIFICANTLY more profitable (at least 280%) over time than flat betting DESPITE the low win percentage -- because of the MASSIVE payoff potential on the winners!
the net result of the 16.64 winners counter-balances the 83.3 % losers by a VERY WIDE and PROFITABLE MARGIN.
period

but the capper is free to bet as he wishes.
i am not telling ANYONE how to bet.
just pointing out the profitable math for those smart enough to understand how to use it.

[Hareeba!]

then u have COMPLETELY misread my essay above.

there will be very few WEEKLY opportunities to form 3 team parlays, inspite of the massive payoff potential to a WINNING Capper. risk of ruin in practical application (not theory) disolves into a non-sequitor.

the math proves forming 3 team parlays whenever possible is SIGNIFICANTLY more profitable (at least 280%) over time than flat betting DESPITE the low win percentage -- because of the MASSIVE payoff potential on the winners!
the net result of the 16.64 winners counter-balances the 83.3 % losers by a VERY WIDE and PROFITABLE MARGIN.
period

but the capper is free to bet as he wishes.
i am not telling ANYONE how to bet.
just pointing out the profitable math for those smart enough to understand how to use it.

Ok mate. I'll leave it to someone able to express himself better than I to take up the discussion.
Expression was always one of my weaker subjects, unlike arithmetic and logic.

[phil_abuster]

as a follow up i thought i would be helpful and show the simple arithmetic to everyone here for 2 team parlays.
u will see that these r also significantly better than flat betting, though not as much as the 3 team parlays.

assume 55% win expectation
assume 300 picks

FLAT betting: risking $100 to win $90.91
300 flat bets at 55% win rate = 165 win / 135 lose
165 wins x $90.91 = +$15,000 (rounded)
135 losses x $100 = - $13,500

*** NET profit ---> +$1,500 (from $30,000 risked)
ROI is = 5 %

-----------------------------------------------------------

300 picks = form 150 bets on 2 team parlays
2 team parlays at typical 264:1 odds
55% win expectation = .55 x .55 = 30.25% of 150 will win
= 45.375 winners and 104.625 will lose (over time) for every 150 parlays

** wagering the same amount as flat betting means each parlay is $200
$200 at 264:1 odds is $528 per win

45.375 wins x $528 = +$23,958
104.625 lose x $200 = -$20,925

*** NET profit --> +$3,033 (from same $30,000 risked!!!)

ROI is = 10.1 %

*Note: net profit and ROI r both DOUBLE that of flat-betting the same picks for the same amount.

for sake of illustration, what if the winning capper could *ALWAYS* get -107 odds on ALL his ATS & totals picks??
even then the 2 team parlays still come out waaaaay ahead when getting the typical 264:1 odds!
the 55% winning capper who insists on flat betting only would gain $1920 profit.
2-team-parlays on those same picks, and same amount bet = $3,033 profit.
still a whopping 58% more profit by forming 2 team parlays whenever possible.
at 55% win expectation, 2 team parlays hit on average 30.25% of the time.nearly double the win rate of 3 team parlays but nowhere near as good a payoff.

[evo34]

No intelligent punter would regularly risk the same stake on a 16.6375% chance as he would on a 55% chance.

[Hareeba!]

https://www.thoughtco.com/sports-betting-how-to-bet-parlays-3116227

Are Parlays Good Bets?

The simple answer is no, especially parlays involving point spreads or totals. The odds of the payoff are much less than the true odds. For example, the true odds of winning a three-team parlay when making point spread wagers are 7-1, while the payoff is only 6-1, and it gets worse as you bet more teams. The true odds of hitting a 10-team point parlay are 1,023-1, while the payoff is generally around 600-1, so a parlay bettor is at a big disadvantage.



Money line parlay payoffs are calculated on the odds of the game, so there is no advantage or disadvantage in playing them.

Bettors should stick with straight bets when betting against the point spread or totals as it's difficult enough to pick one winner, let alone two or more games and the odds you are asked to try and beat are nearly impossible to overcome in the long run.

[phil_abuster]

No intelligent punter would regularly risk the same stake on a 16.6375% chance as he would on a 55% chance.

they would if they understood the meaning of "probability" and "value" and "ROI"
55% chance to win $300
or
16.63% chance to win $1800

the chance of the 55% winning is 3.3 times greater. yes!
but the payoff on the 16.63% parlay is 6 times greater -
- which more than compensates for the lower win rate!!

spread over the 300 picks in my illustration (which could take a year)
the flat bettor has an ROI of 5%
forming those same picks into 3 team parlays is 16.5% ROI
even 2 team parlays (30.25% win rate) have a 10.1 % ROI
bottom line.

this should b very easy for anyone to understand

[Cookie Monster]

Guy, you remind me of myself 20 years ago, I had some good ideas but was lacking on many issues. I proudly trumpeted my "discoveries" (most often reinventing the wheel). It is not that I was totally wrong, I was right on most things, just was unable to see the whole picture.

You are right on many levels. 3-legs parlays have better ROI than flat betting. But you are comparing apples to oranges. A +600 is a very different animal than a -110. For an extreme example, if you invest $100000 on a T-bill, you are "risking" all that money against the probability that US treasury will default. It is a 0.0000001 risk. OTOH, if you put the same money on a number in the roulette, you have 0.973 probability of losing it. In both cases you are "risking" the same amount, but the second bet is much more riskier, that is common sense. In the same vein, the $100 placed in a +600 parlay is way more on risk than in a -110 bet.

Besides, the goal of your betting is not exactly "winning money on average", but growing your bankroll. It sounds the same, but there are important differences. $1 won is not worth for us exactly the same as $1 lost. In small amounts the difference is tiny, but on big amounts it is huge. For example, if you have amassed $1 million for your retirement and are offered to risk all of it on a +100 bet where you have 51% of winning, you should decline the offer. True, the odds are in your favor, but losing all of your money hurts much more than the benefit of doubling it. so, the money in your bankroll is not a linear function. Some Kelly guy found that bankroll worth follows closely a logarithmic function, and deducted formulas for optimum bets.

He found that underdog moneyline betting are bad at growing the bankroll. It will lose most likely, so had to risk a smaller amount. Favorite moneyline betting have much better growth profile (assuming same +EV) thusly more "risk" is optimum.

So, you +600 parlays are way more riskier than -110 flat bets,and should be placed in smaller amounts. Just saying "there is a significantly higher risk of ruin in theory but not in practice" does not cut it. You must equal ROR to the other options, and place amounts accordingly.And after that you will find the parlay advantage mostly vanish. Still the +600 (instead of +595.8) and the composite winning could make parlays worth it, but the inconveniences will likely outweigh the beneficies.

this is not evident from your post.
ive laid out the simple math, and it is accurate.



yes. so what???

in my illustration the math illustrates the results of betting 3 picks for $300
compared w/ betting those same 3 picks in a parlay for the SAME $300.
neither method is wagering more than the other! they both wager $300.
now U think about that

[Hareeba!]

this should b very easy for anyone to understand

And therein lies a danger for any inexperienced punter looking to be educated.

[phil_abuster]

Are Parlays Good Bets?
The simple answer is no, especially parlays involving point spreads or totals.

and yet the simple arithmetic I showed clearly PROVES otherwise
(provided positive win expectation, as stated repeatedly)

Bettors should stick with straight bets when betting against the point spread or totals as it's difficult enough to pick one winner, let alone two or more games and the odds you are asked to try and beat are nearly impossible to overcome in the long run.

absolutely TRUE! ------> for the average cappers (ie. the overwhelming majority with less than a 52% win expectation )
by flat betting only, the average capper (loser) will still LOSE but lose at a slower rate than he would playing parlays -which accelerates losing for the losing capper.
as i noted *CLEARLY* in my essay, parlays r ONLY for those consistent winning cappers (positive win expectation as demonstrated week-by-week, season by season) for them the math PROVES 3 team parlays - when available regardless how infrequent that may be - r always better value than flat betting

Parlays r NOT good plays for the average capper!!!
but the math i laid conclusively PROVES they r better value than flat betting - whenever available - to the consistent winning cappers (ie. proven ability above 53% win expectation)

[phil_abuster]

You are right on many levels.
3-legs parlays have better ROI than flat betting.
But you are comparing apples to oranges.

no sir, i am not.
i have proven that the math shows a better value for the same picks formed into a 3 team parlay for the WINNING CAPPERS ONLY.
fact.

So, you +600 parlays are way more riskier than -110 flat bets,and should be placed in smaller amounts.

that would be true *IF AND ONLY IF* a WINNING CAPPER could form a sizable percentage of his picks into 3 team parlays. as noted in my discussion this is simply not plausible! most winning cappers don't even have 3 ATS or sides picks per night, let alone ALL AT THE SAME BOOK. some dont even have that many in a week! winning cappers r very selective. they dont "spray the board" like many average cappers do.
and so with so few pics per week, the very few opportunities that the WINNING capper has to form 3 team parlays all at the same book would be few indeed and therefore NO significant increase in the "Risk of ruin"

Just saying "there is a significantly higher risk of ruin in theory but not in practice" does not cut it. You must equal ROR to the other options, and place amounts accordingly.

but it does "cut it"
flat-betting my 27 picks this week (at various books) and then being able to form just ONE 3 team parlay on my last 3 picks (all at the same book) would cause what catastrophe to my br ?? Where is the SIGNIFICANT increase in "risk of ruin???" virtually zilch.
obviously if a WINNING CAPPER was able to form 3 team parlays daily (they dont) and a great many 3 team parlays on the weekends sure his risk of ruin increases. mind u the bonafide WINNING capper would certainly have the br to cover it off. but even so, as i CLEARLY pointed out in my essay, in such a rare case the WINNING capper would wager 1/3 the amount of the 3 flat bets and STILL come out +9.8% better profit! (review PART A above) greater profit and higher ROI with vastly reduced ROR is the bottom line.

[phil_abuster]

And therein lies a danger for any inexperienced punter looking to be educated.

which would explain WHY i took special care to repeat myself ad nauseam about my "caveats" in regards to betting parlays - especially how it applies to WINNING CAPPERS with positive win expectation ONLY.

its all there, clear as can be.

[Hareeba!]

its all there, clear as can be.

but alas, just plain wrong

[tsty]

stop betting parlays

easy