Money Line Parlays

[Happy'Capper]

Just wanted to get some opinions on this topic.

I have always been taught that any type of parlays were a sucker bet and should not be made....... For the most part, I believed that, but lately I have actually think when it comes to money lines that might not always be true......

To me this seems especially true when you have a hefty favorite and a dog....... beautiful risk/reward opportunity. Now, I realize when you are talking anything over a three team parlay that is pretty much luck, but a two teamer?? Any opinons are appreciated.

thanks,
HC

 

[prospector]

HC

i like the ML parlays in basketball the best.

you know ... instead of, say, Portland -16 over Vancouver and San Antonio - 8 over Milwaukee

i play them as a parlay on the ML
pays only about 1.6 X's your investment but i got burned only twice last year.

remember when the Grizzlies beat the Blazers twice in one week in a home and home series?
ouch!

 

[Neemer]

But what about your payoff? If ya bet two heavily favored money line teams, say -250 & up, then what would your payoff be? Statistically, it's a bad bet, and I'm sure IE could dig up all the info. you need. Perhaps ya might just want to follow Butterbean for awhile.

 

[Happy'Capper]

Neemer,
I can tell by your reply that you didn't realize IE had a two selection parlay in yesterday's baseball. No, they weren't big favs, but yes it was a parlay. That is why I bring this up to see if there is any room for it in our plays. If there is anyone's statistical knowledge I respect above all it is IE's.

 

[TORONTO-VIGILANTE]

hey, I'll take a parlay that hits anyday...
I'd rather bet on two heavy favs (it's worked for me alot in hockey, AFL,NFL
baseball AND NBA) for moneylines and get
the win than to lose two team parlays on point spreads....
with pointspreads, we know that anything can
happen...it all depends on the bettor.

i'll take a win with a 1.6 moneyline factor times my wager anyday.

A win is a win.


[This message has been edited by TORONTO-VIGILANTE (edited 07-30-2001).]

 

[ozball]

Is it a bad bet??? I understand the bad bet aspect of pointspread parlays, paying under the odds, but doesn't a moneyline parlay just pay as though you took all the profit off one ML wager and let it ride on the next?

Sure your odds of hitting it are less than each favourite individually, but doesn't the increased payout (vs a straight bet) make up for this.

Someone set me right if I'm mistaken

ozball

 

[Neemer]

thanks HC; didn't realize that...

 

[TDP]

I agree with prospector. I made a nice profit this season betting big favorites in the NBA using the moneyline on parlays. Mostly two teamers, but occassionaly even three or four. Parlays are sucker bets in point spread sports in my opinion, but under the right circumstances make decent plays on the moneyline.........

 

[katts]

I could write 10,000 words about the subject and I know it wouldn't change anything. When someone wants to play a parlay, there's nothing to stop him. It's a fact: there's a lot of good rasons to parlay, and there's a lot of good reasons not to do it. But if you think you add "value" in your ticket because you add some big favorites, then this is a total misconception of the meaning of the word "value".

Just remember one thing: it is a PAR - LAY I repeat: PAR....... LAY.

 

[McSlouch]

What are your favorite books for moneyline parlays in football and basketball? Do they still follow their regular payoff schedules? Two teamers at 2.6 x 1, 3 teamers at 6 x 1, 4 teamers at 10 x 1....etc?

 

[TDP]

Katts, As I said I never play parlays in point spread sports. The risk of one team or the other losing is too great regardless of the odds. But when I can take the Spurs vs. Vancouver at home (with the Grizzlies playing their third game in four nights on the Texas swing) and say the Lakers VS. Atlanta (also playing their third game in four nights on the west coast) and get it at basically even odds with the Spurs and Lakers only having to win the game, then I will take my chances. Everyone always talks about "value" in the point spread or moneyline, and they are important. But there is also value in laying less to win more (if and only if) when you feel you have a true advantage. Some of these will lose from time to time, but with selective choices you will win more than you lose. Toal misconception of the word "value". I would say the same to you. I suppose it is all in the eye of the beholder..............

[This message has been edited by TDP (edited 08-01-2001).]

 

[katts]

TDP - I'm too busy right now to write a long response, so I'll keep it short.

If you figure out that the probability of Team A to win the game is 80% and the line is -300.. you like the odds right? You exepect a net return of 6.7% (I'll let you do the math).

Then what is the difference, in terms of "value" that is, between laying 30$ and laying 300$? None. There's absolutely no difference. The play is the same and is just as valuable whenther you risk 300$ or 30$. It has nothing to do with the amount in action, it's all about %.

When you "PAR-LAY", the only thing you're doing is to take the money won on Selection A + the initial amount risked and bet the whole thing on Selection B. That's why we call this type of bet a "parlay". You don't add any "value" in your ticket *because* there's more money in action, as a matter of fact the only thing you're doing is messing with your bankroll and this will get you at the long run. How many times I've seen people "chickening" out after they hit 5 out of 5 in their 6-games parlay and bet the opposite of their last selection in game 6. Hey I'm not blaming these people, I gotta be be one of the biggest chicken in there when it comes to hedge plays, but what was the idea of playing a 6-teamers if you're going to hedge in the last game? Or maybe they just realize what is the *real* definition of a parlay bet after they won their 5th selection don't you think? If there was 1 unit wagered on the ticket, at that point they realize that, technically speaking, they're betting not 1, not 5 but 25 units on the 6th game (assuming a standard football or basketball parlay).

It's all the same when it comes to money lines - only that the risked amount of your "final play" will be quite lower if you like heavy favorites. But the idea remains the same: You cumulate, and basically that's no good money management.

 

[TDP]

I look at it like this.....If I play a two team parly with the spurs and the lakers, both at -500 on the moneyline and lay $100 (100 x 1.20 x 1.20) = +$44 profit ($144 return counting my lay)......If I bet them seperate and lay $50 on each of the two I get a total return of $20 (lay $50 to win $10 on each one seperately) on that same $100......That is a significant difference for the amount wagered....Granted they both must win, but that is where being selective wins more times than not if you are deligent.......To me thats value any way you cut it and is good moneymanagement.........

 

[buckeye]

IMO, $line parlays do little more than let you risk less to win more with the proportional increased risk of losing. The only advantage is the "compounding effect" of effectively letting the winnings and stake from the prior "legs" ride on the subsequent legs. The odds/value of each leg don't change, so it is more about money management and not putting any more $ at risk besides the original stake, than anything else.

I don't think there is anything WRONG with playing $line parlays as long as you are having success, or would have success, playing the picks individually. The compounding effect of parlays also works in reverse as it compounds losses if your picks are poor. So winners will win more, in general, and losers will lose more ( which is why most should avoid them as most are losers overall ). Money management considerations are at a higher premium for parlay players though. It is also not very smart to play more than 2 or 3 legs unless it is for small stakes, IMO.

Spread parlays are a slightly different breed, but not as much as most are suggesting. The real difference is that 2 teamers at traditional 2.6-1 odds have "slightly" more vig built in ( 2.644-1 would be equivalent vig ) than straight 10-11 bets have. It is much worse for 4+ teamers. 3 teamers at 6-1 actually have less vig ( 5.96-1 would be equivalent ) than straights.

But the compounding effect is exactly the same for spread parlays as for $line ones, so winnings will be compounded and losses compounded as well.

One thing to keep in mind is juice deals. Just like AG+100fri and carib-102tue and others offering -105 or -107 for straights, some outs offer parlays at substantially better odds than traditional. The two I plan to use, assuming their lines are equivalent to the best I can get at the time, are 2.9-1 at AllWorld and 7-1 at Infinity for two and three teamers. This equates to -103 and +100 and I LIKEE THEM ODDS!

GL2All