SBR is to Takleberry's 5Dimes situation, as TheRx is to Corey1111's situation.

[BigDaddy]

If there is a 100% correlation (i.e. Betting Dallas -3 with Dallas ML -150, or Tiger over Lehman with Tiger win the Mastesr), a book can void one of the plays.

Otherwise, if a book doesn't want CPs, it shouldn't offer them.

dallas -3 and ML is not 100%

but i get what you are saying

[skrtelfan]

Dallas -3 and ML is 100% because 100% of the time Dallas covers the -3, the ML wins.

[BigDaddy]

Dallas -3 and ML is 100% because 100% of the time Dallas covers the -3, the ML wins.

the parlay can lose so its not 100%

pk -110 and ml -110 parlayed together would be 100%

[PoweRay]

the parlay can lose so its not 100%

pk -110 and ml -110 parlayed together would be 100%

BifDaddy are you drinking tonight? Don't you agree that if Dallas -3 wins, that they also win the moneyline? How can that not be 100% correlated?

[BigDaddy]

BifDaddy are you drinking tonight? Don't you agree that if Dallas -3 wins, that they also win the moneyline? How can that not be 100% correlated?

yes i know if they cover -3 the ml wins

[PoweRay]

the parlay can lose so its not 100%

pk -110 and ml -110 parlayed together would be 100%

BigDaddy please book my action. Every time I like a straight wager minus the points, please let me parlay it with the same team on the moneyline! After all, its like you said not a 100% sure thing. LMAO

[BigDaddy]

no i would not book those bets and i never said i would

[PoweRay]

For a short time in 2009, Bookmaker's software was allowing parlays of baseball sides parlayed with the same team on the runline. Wish it was me, lol. But they paid the player since they had collected on his losses of these CPs.

[BigDaddy]

^

yes that would have been nice to be that player and get paid as well

[wrongturn]

the parlay can lose so its not 100%

pk -110 and ml -110 parlayed together would be 100%

It can lose too. Maybe we can agree that your parlay is 200% correlated.

[PoweRay]

It can lose too. Maybe we can agree that your parlay is 200% correlated.

Rumor has it that one night Bigdaddy was so hungry that eating 100% of the pizza wasn't enough for him. He had to eat all 200% of the pizza! lol j/k BugDaddy, we all love BigDaddy!

[Killakrzydav]

I would love to see how SBR would have handled the Cory/EZ street situation now given their current stance.

Industry Watchdog? Exactly what and you watching over when you have no influence on decision making processes and you are paid to promote shit sites..

[skrtelfan]

the parlay can lose so its not 100%

pk -110 and ml -110 parlayed together would be 100%

That a parlay can lose does not mean it is not 100% correlated. And pk -110 with ml -110 can also lose.

[BigDaddy]

That a parlay can lose does not mean it is not 100% correlated. And pk -110 with ml -110 can also lose.

yes i know the pk -110 and ml -110 parlay can lose

my point was that it was not 100% that dallas -3 wins if the ML covers

just like a -45 and over 52 is not 100% to win if the -45 covers

i guess i am wrong when i think 100% means that if A happens B happens no matter what.

[ElLoco23]

yes i know the pk -110 and ml -110 parlay can lose

my point was that it was not 100% that dallas -3 wins if the ML covers

just like a -45 and over 52 is not 100% to win if the -45 covers

i guess i am wrong when i think 100% means that if A happens B happens no matter what.

I see what you are saying, but if we used that analogy we would never consider a correlated parlay to be 100% then. Even if we used the example of -45 and over 45, we would never see it. Just having 1 leg of the parlay win and the other automatically win i good enough for me to be considered 100% correlated.