Hi everyone, first time poster here.
I just finished reading Nolan's parlay article ( http://www.madjacksports.com/nolan/article1012.shtml ) and a couple of things popped in my head that I wanted to comment on. I don't agree that there is no financial incentive to bets on parlays. Here's why:
Firstly, if you are selecting your plays randomly then certainly parlay odds against you are terrible, much worse than the 4.54% odds against you on an 11-to-10 straight bet. The random parlay bettor will lose his money at a faster rate that one who bets straight up. In this case, the best advice I would have for the bettor is stop trying to figure out betting straight up vs. parlays ... better to keep your money and don't bet at all! If they insist on placing some kind of a wager - say for entertainment purposes - then yes, straight bets are the way to go and parlays are horrible.
But what if you are a professional bettor who is able to pick out the wagers where the odds are in your favour? Well then the rate at which you make your money is now higher, in the same way that the random bettor's rate of losing was.
Let's say you are an NBA capper with a proven record of 55%. You make a 2-team parlay for $100 which would return to you $360 if it hits (profit of $260). Your chances of hitting the parlay are .55 * .55 = 30.25% and your expected return on your $100 investment is 360 * 0.3025 = $108.90 for an 8.9% return, much nicer than the 4.54% return on a straight bet.
In the example above your decision is made a bit more complicated because you aren't getting true odds on your bet (true odds on a 2-team parlay are approx. +265, not +260) Because your absolute chances of hitting the parlay are lower, proper money management techniques require you to lower your stake which may offset the advantageous % return. But if you are getting true odds, say by combining 2 money lines other than -110, then there are cases where a parlay is the better bet. Here is an example:
Say you are down to a low balance at a sportsbook and you feel to have 2 very high percentage plays for tonight and the best odds you can find are both at this book. Both games start at the same time and very soon (i.e. you don't have enough time to transfer funds into the account) Here is a clear case where you can increase your return by parlaying the games together. A good way to treat parlays is to look at them as 2 separate bets. The risk amount is applied to one of the selections - doesn't matter which one - and if it hits then the total proceeds from that bet, including the stake, is the wager amount for the second selection. The advantage to the player is that he is given access to capital he does not have ... in effect the bookmaker is permaturely giving him access to money which is not in his pocket yet and allowing him to use it for another positive expectation bet.
Now where parlays get really interesting is if you get get away with correlated selections and Nolan is right on the money here. Like he says, you have to be creative and if you can think of good ones and find books which take take them then you can really get some juicy returns with these. But I disagree that a professional sports bettor has no financial incentive to parlay 2 independent games.
I just finished reading Nolan's parlay article ( http://www.madjacksports.com/nolan/article1012.shtml ) and a couple of things popped in my head that I wanted to comment on. I don't agree that there is no financial incentive to bets on parlays. Here's why:
Firstly, if you are selecting your plays randomly then certainly parlay odds against you are terrible, much worse than the 4.54% odds against you on an 11-to-10 straight bet. The random parlay bettor will lose his money at a faster rate that one who bets straight up. In this case, the best advice I would have for the bettor is stop trying to figure out betting straight up vs. parlays ... better to keep your money and don't bet at all! If they insist on placing some kind of a wager - say for entertainment purposes - then yes, straight bets are the way to go and parlays are horrible.
But what if you are a professional bettor who is able to pick out the wagers where the odds are in your favour? Well then the rate at which you make your money is now higher, in the same way that the random bettor's rate of losing was.
Let's say you are an NBA capper with a proven record of 55%. You make a 2-team parlay for $100 which would return to you $360 if it hits (profit of $260). Your chances of hitting the parlay are .55 * .55 = 30.25% and your expected return on your $100 investment is 360 * 0.3025 = $108.90 for an 8.9% return, much nicer than the 4.54% return on a straight bet.
In the example above your decision is made a bit more complicated because you aren't getting true odds on your bet (true odds on a 2-team parlay are approx. +265, not +260) Because your absolute chances of hitting the parlay are lower, proper money management techniques require you to lower your stake which may offset the advantageous % return. But if you are getting true odds, say by combining 2 money lines other than -110, then there are cases where a parlay is the better bet. Here is an example:
Say you are down to a low balance at a sportsbook and you feel to have 2 very high percentage plays for tonight and the best odds you can find are both at this book. Both games start at the same time and very soon (i.e. you don't have enough time to transfer funds into the account) Here is a clear case where you can increase your return by parlaying the games together. A good way to treat parlays is to look at them as 2 separate bets. The risk amount is applied to one of the selections - doesn't matter which one - and if it hits then the total proceeds from that bet, including the stake, is the wager amount for the second selection. The advantage to the player is that he is given access to capital he does not have ... in effect the bookmaker is permaturely giving him access to money which is not in his pocket yet and allowing him to use it for another positive expectation bet.
Now where parlays get really interesting is if you get get away with correlated selections and Nolan is right on the money here. Like he says, you have to be creative and if you can think of good ones and find books which take take them then you can really get some juicy returns with these. But I disagree that a professional sports bettor has no financial incentive to parlay 2 independent games.
