Parlay Question, need help.
- Thread starter gjn23
- Start date
I DON'T LIKE PARLAYS UNLESS I BET BOTH TEAMS SEPARATELY ALSO--BUT IF I HAD A GUN TO MY HEAD I WOULD BET DIFFERENT GAME PARLAYS
...as we all very well know, parlays and teasers are bad bets. they shift the advantage to the book. i don't play them, but thinking about your question, it would seem to me that a correlated parlay would be better for the player.... i seem to remember nolan hitting on this in one of his articles, but i don't have time to look for it.... maybe someone could post you a link to it.
gjn23...Toaist hit it right on the head. Both parlays and teasers are bad wagers to make. I learned a great deal from the article that Nollan Dalla put out titled " Correlated Parlays and Correlated Teasers.". I personnally have taken full advantage of the 7 point correlated (on the same game) teasers in college and pro football. The down side is putting up -130 to win 100. You must be selective. But if you do your homework, it can be worth it!
Try http://www.madjacksports.com/nolan/article1012.shtml
Hope it helps. If you need an example, let me know!
Good Luck!
Try http://www.madjacksports.com/nolan/article1012.shtml
Hope it helps. If you need an example, let me know!
Good Luck!
Thanks, but not sure if I agree with Nolan's reasoning. I also agree that in general parlays are not great bets but I would argue that the higher winning % you have (tracking and history of your games) the better bet is a 2 team parlay vs 2 straight up games.
2 team parlay (separate games) you need two things to happen:
1) Team A to win by 3 or more
2) Team B to win by 6 or more
2 team parlay (same game, say 3/49) wouldn't you need three things to happen:
1) Team A to win by 3 or more
2) Team A to score at least 27 points
3) Team A & Team B to score at least 49 points combined.
I don't think that a same game paylay is a "real correlated parlay" because does team A really care if they win 14-0 or 34-20?
His examples on the props makes sense since IF one happens the other might not happen thus the added value (ie first FG/longest FG and first FG/shortest FG scenarios).
Still looking for statistical evidence fav/over dog/under are they really better than team a and team b parlay.
2 team parlay (separate games) you need two things to happen:
1) Team A to win by 3 or more
2) Team B to win by 6 or more
2 team parlay (same game, say 3/49) wouldn't you need three things to happen:
1) Team A to win by 3 or more
2) Team A to score at least 27 points
3) Team A & Team B to score at least 49 points combined.
I don't think that a same game paylay is a "real correlated parlay" because does team A really care if they win 14-0 or 34-20?
His examples on the props makes sense since IF one happens the other might not happen thus the added value (ie first FG/longest FG and first FG/shortest FG scenarios).
Still looking for statistical evidence fav/over dog/under are they really better than team a and team b parlay.
I disagree with most about parlays being a bad bet. If you can consistantly cap at better than 60% the advantage then shifts to be in your favor but that don't answer your question. I find that when I cap a game I am either 100% right or 100 % wrong so playing both sides of the same game works for me. Good luck
gsp said:
...joe, i respect your abilities and your opinion, but how many folks have you run across that can do this on a consistent basis? 60%? my guess is that they are far and few between.... if you're hitting in the high 50% range (i.e. 57-58%), you're one hellofa handicapper.
...good luck this weekend.
p.s. i do like the vandy angle...thanks for posting it.
edit: I should clarify.... I'm simply talking about hitting 60% in football, not baseball...where playing two big fav's as a parlay is somewhat feasible if you can't stomach laying out a lot of juice.
Last edited:
Correlation
Correlation
...defined as the mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc. is discussed by Stanford Wong in his book "Sharp Sports Betting" and in the excellent article by Nolan Dalla.
Correlation is rare: the term "correlated" only really applies in certain limited situations (e.g., where two independent propositions win because they share one determinative event in common, like when Superbowl props offer "longest field goal" and "only one field goal" bets, the only fg will be the longest).
Correlation also occurs when the same wind storm will affect two different football games in the same region of the country, thereby keeping the score of both games under the number.
IMHO, the only things worth parlaying are these situations. The situations you are suggesting here, gjn23, are not really correlations (more like quasi-correlations). This is not to say that they don't have tendencies to happen together, like the following:
dog and the under, or favorite and the over
Correlation
...defined as the mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc. is discussed by Stanford Wong in his book "Sharp Sports Betting" and in the excellent article by Nolan Dalla.
Correlation is rare: the term "correlated" only really applies in certain limited situations (e.g., where two independent propositions win because they share one determinative event in common, like when Superbowl props offer "longest field goal" and "only one field goal" bets, the only fg will be the longest).
Correlation also occurs when the same wind storm will affect two different football games in the same region of the country, thereby keeping the score of both games under the number.
IMHO, the only things worth parlaying are these situations. The situations you are suggesting here, gjn23, are not really correlations (more like quasi-correlations). This is not to say that they don't have tendencies to happen together, like the following:
dog and the under, or favorite and the over
