Hedging a parlay at a single book when 1/2 is already won

[BouncedCheck]

I parlayed a $50 bet on the Steelers and Jets to win $294.

If I now bet $100 on the Patriots to win $50, which will guarantee that I break even, will the book get mad at me and claim I'm stealing from them?

[noober]

No.

[Hareeba!]

I parlayed a $50 bet on the Steelers and Jets to win $294.

If I now bet $100 on the Patriots to win $50, which will guarantee that I break even, will the book get mad at me and claim I'm stealing from them?

only a crap book would do that to you

[Santo]

Some books will get upset if you're using bonus money

[Hareeba!]

Some books will get upset if you're using bonus money

yeah, fair point
didn't think of that possibility

[wtt0315]

safe play i would assume

[BChrisB]

I've done it at a number of books without a problem.


However, time after time of thinking about hedging parlays is a bad idea IMHO. Statistical odds on a 2 team parlay is 1/4 (on sides bets of course) which typically pays 260. Hedging your parlay in the long run is going to lower you odds dramatically. Basically, a 2.6 payout vs 4.0 true odds is bad enough, your making it worse and over time you'll never win money this way.

[LostBankroll]

Why not risk $200 on Patriots to win $100? That way, you win $50 if Pats win and win $94 if Jets win. These figues will be the profits only im not counting the Risked money.

[BouncedCheck]

Thanks for the responses guys. No, I'm not using any bonus money. I've declined any and all bonus money on every deposit I've ever made at this book, and it's got a decent rating here. Some high rollers have had problems with it in the past, but it's regarded as a basically safe, reliable recreational book, so based on what you guys have said, I don't think this should pose a problem for me, hopefully.

However, time after time of thinking about hedging parlays is a bad idea IMHO. Statistical odds on a 2 team parlay is 1/4 (on sides bets of course) which typically pays 260. Hedging your parlay in the long run is going to lower you odds dramatically. Basically, a 2.6 payout vs 4.0 true odds is bad enough, your making it worse and over time you'll never win money this way.

This is a strategy I use selectively and cautiously, and it has worked well for me in the past. When I see an underdog who I don't think deserves to be an underdog (in this case it was the Steelers) I like to parlay them with another dog with a start time at least 4 hours later (in this case the Jets). The reason this works is because a parlay on two dogs gets much better odds than the +260 you cited.

I make a straight bet on the first team (in this case, $100 on Steelers to win $155) and then I also do a parlay for a smaller amount on them with another dog (in this case $50 on Steelers+Jets to win $294).

I'm robbing Peter to pay Paul, by transferring odds from one game to another. It's kind of like buying or selling points in one game and then applying them to another. Let me explain in a little more detail. Let's say I go ahead and place the $100 bet on the Pats. This would be my result for each individual possible outcome:

wins by Baltimore + Pats = -$150 (loss entirely on Steelers, no bet on Pats ever placed)
wins by Baltimore + Jets = -$150 (loss entirely on Steelers, no bet on Pats ever placed)
wins by Pittsburgh + Pats = +$155
wins by Pittsburgh + Jets = +$349

Effectively, I gave up the + money on Pittsburgh (risking $150 to win $155, making it an even money bet) in exchange for a substantial free play on the Jets. The difference in my result based on the Jets/Pats outcome will be $349-$155 = $194. At +170 odds, I'd have to bet $114 to win $194, so it's basically a $114 free play, and all I had to do to get it was give up the + money on a $150 Steelers bet. Because my confidence in Pittsburgh was very high, and I think Jets/Pats is really a 50/50 proposition, I'm very comfortable with this betting strategy in this particular situation, which is kind of unique.

In the past, I've always placed bets like this using multiple books, to avoid any potential problem. Today, I only have money in a single book, and I'd rather not make a deposit today if I can avoid it. That's why I started this thread.

[ucbearcats1027]

dude just roll with the jets and then let brady scrww u

[homerbush]

I've done it at a number of books without a problem.


However, time after time of thinking about hedging parlays is a bad idea IMHO. Statistical odds on a 2 team parlay is 1/4 (on sides bets of course) which typically pays 260. Hedging your parlay in the long run is going to lower you odds dramatically. Basically, a 2.6 payout vs 4.0 true odds is bad enough, your making it worse and over time you'll never win money this way.

Yes but you need a math lesson it is 2.6-1odds but it is 3.6 payout as you get the initial amount back.

[BChrisB]

Yes but you need a math lesson it is 2.6-1odds but it is 3.6 payout as you get the initial amount back.

You need a reading lesson, I stated on side bets. While I'm at it, maybe go back to math class as well. If you get your initial amount back by hedging a parlay the other way, than how does that become a 3.6 payout? Think about it.

[crinkle]

why would you make a two team parlay with the intention of hedging the bet once you cashed in on the first piece of it? It's simply a case of not being informed on your part. A parlay is simply a contract bet which you instruct the books to take all the money that you win on game #1 + your initial risk and roll it all on to game number 2. Doesn't matter if it's -110 or +2500 it's still the same formula. So many people think parlays pay better but in fact they often pay less. My advice is to do a little home work on sports wagering so you can understand exactly how your bets work once you make contracts with the books. GLTU

[homerbush]

You need a reading lesson, I stated on side bets. While I'm at it, maybe go back to math class as well. If you get your initial amount back by hedging a parlay the other way, than how does that become a 3.6 payout? Think about it.

I need a reading lesson correct not a math lesson I didn't realize you were already accounting for the hedge in your calculations when I accounted for it I had it down to a 1.6 payout.

[homerbush]

My question what about hedging when the line has moved and there is a chance for a middle on the hedge? I always find that to be a win win situation except I still wouldn't probably bother on just a two teamer

[protein]

dude just roll with the jets and then let brady scrww u

Look who´s back, the STIFF himself!

Just remember that I will never forget what You´ve done to me and there will be payback time. No matter the payback is in SBR forum, real life or somewhere else but one has to pay what he owes. Just let the interest ticking.

Good luck stiffmaster!

[BChrisB]

I need a reading lesson correct not a math lesson I didn't realize you were already accounting for the hedge in your calculations when I accounted for it I had it down to a 1.6 payout.

No problem, it's easy to get misunderstandings on forum threads. We're all trying to say a million things with so many less words.

[ucbearcats1027]

so im guessing you did it. if nopt brady killed u

[BChrisB]

My question what about hedging when the line has moved and there is a chance for a middle on the hedge? I always find that to be a win win situation except I still wouldn't probably bother on just a two teamer

Usually, a late injury, abrupt weather change/conditions, etc, etc can warrant this. Small spread swings might not be worth your time. However, I'm not an expert on middles. I've only done this very few times and it was usually when a quarterback was listed out or a snow storm was coming in where it made the spread between my original line justifiable.

Someone who has more experience with middles would be a better source in telling you if it's justifiable, I do know that this scenario has worked for me a few times in the past.

[BouncedCheck]

why would you make a two team parlay with the intention of hedging the bet once you cashed in on the first piece of it? It's simply a case of not being informed on your part. A parlay is simply a contract bet which you instruct the books to take all the money that you win on game #1 + your initial risk and roll it all on to game number 2. Doesn't matter if it's -110 or +2500 it's still the same formula. So many people think parlays pay better but in fact they often pay less. My advice is to do a little home work on sports wagering so you can understand exactly how your bets work once you make contracts with the books. GLTU

I'm definitely not the most informed, that's for sure. So how is a parlay fundamentally any different than an If-bet?

In this particular case, let's say the Jets had won. Steelers were +155 and Jets were +170. The parlay gave odds of +588. And if I put down $100 on Steelers to win $155, on an If-bet, then rolled that $255 into a bet on the Jets, the second bet would pay out $255*1.7 + $255 = $688.

So you are proven correct. The odds would have been exactly the same either way.

EDIT to subscribe to thread