I've been using parlays ever since i started gambling, but now im really starting to question it. I've lost so many big parlays in these last two weeks by one game. I'd like it if some of you could share your opinions on paralys. Obviously they were set up in the sportsbooks favor, but should they always be stayed away from? If not, when should they be used, what is the max amount of teams that you would ever throw into a parlay, and any numbers on the subject would be much appreciated also.
Parlays, are they worth it?
- Thread starter msutter13
- Start date
parlays to me are just for fun....when i play 'em....i do so REAL small...kinda like hitting the lottery!!!
teasers, on the other hand, are just tooooooooo sweet....and money CAN be made from them!!!
good luck!!!
teasers, on the other hand, are just tooooooooo sweet....and money CAN be made from them!!!
good luck!!!
I disagree on teasers. If you don't like a game enough w/out teasing it, you shouldn't be betting it. It creates implied value when it doesn't exist. As for parlays, I'll occasionally play them but anything over a 4-teamer is a bad bet since the difference between actual and theoretic payout just gets too big.
heard a million times that
heard a million times that
all books fear the the straight, single game player more than anything ...
i dont know if fear is the correct word, but they feast on anything other
gl, gregg
heard a million times that
all books fear the the straight, single game player more than anything ...
i dont know if fear is the correct word, but they feast on anything other
gl, gregg
If you play a parlay at a place like SIA that pays 2.6:1 on them (or 13:5) then they can be more profitable than betting straight up. However, your swings tend to be greater.
Here's just a little math.
Let's say every pick you make has a 54% chance of winning.
Also, let's say you only have two picks every weekend and you're deciding whether to parlay them or play them separately. Roughly, 29% of the time, you hit both. 50% of the time, you hit one, and 21% of the time you hit niether game.
If you would bet 110 on the parlay every weekend, then you have an average win of about $9 per weekend. But what that means is that basically, about 5 weekends per year you'd win $325 and the remaining 12 weeks, you'd lose $110.
But, if you bet $55 on each of those 54%-games separately, you can only expect to win about $3 per week. (.54*100 - .46*110).
So, playing the parlays, you win more over the course of the season, but you'd cash no tickets about 12 weeks of the season. In the second scenario, you win less, but you cash no tickets only about 4 weeks per year. The first is more profitable, but the second is less frustrating.
I think that's why a lot of people say, "Don't play parlays". It's hard to see that they're more profitable when you're not cashing tickets very often. If you get just a little unlucky, you might only cash tickets 2-3 weeks per season, and if you get lucky you might hit them 8 weeks in a season. They're higher risk, higher reward.
I mainly don't play them because I just like to have separate action on everything. I don't like it if my 1:00 game crashes so the 4:00 game means nothing to me.
If you're playing a 3-teamer, you might only expect to hit 2 per season, and a 4-teamer, probably only once per season.
Hope that helps.
TheShrimp
Keep in mind that when I talk about hitting that two teamer only 5 times per year, I mean that as if you only made one bet per week -- that two team parlay. If you play more than one parlay, you can expect to hit more, but then you start getting in the territory of betting games you don't have as much of an edge on.
Here's just a little math.
Let's say every pick you make has a 54% chance of winning.
Also, let's say you only have two picks every weekend and you're deciding whether to parlay them or play them separately. Roughly, 29% of the time, you hit both. 50% of the time, you hit one, and 21% of the time you hit niether game.
If you would bet 110 on the parlay every weekend, then you have an average win of about $9 per weekend. But what that means is that basically, about 5 weekends per year you'd win $325 and the remaining 12 weeks, you'd lose $110.
But, if you bet $55 on each of those 54%-games separately, you can only expect to win about $3 per week. (.54*100 - .46*110).
So, playing the parlays, you win more over the course of the season, but you'd cash no tickets about 12 weeks of the season. In the second scenario, you win less, but you cash no tickets only about 4 weeks per year. The first is more profitable, but the second is less frustrating.
I think that's why a lot of people say, "Don't play parlays". It's hard to see that they're more profitable when you're not cashing tickets very often. If you get just a little unlucky, you might only cash tickets 2-3 weeks per season, and if you get lucky you might hit them 8 weeks in a season. They're higher risk, higher reward.
I mainly don't play them because I just like to have separate action on everything. I don't like it if my 1:00 game crashes so the 4:00 game means nothing to me.
If you're playing a 3-teamer, you might only expect to hit 2 per season, and a 4-teamer, probably only once per season.
Hope that helps.
TheShrimp
Keep in mind that when I talk about hitting that two teamer only 5 times per year, I mean that as if you only made one bet per week -- that two team parlay. If you play more than one parlay, you can expect to hit more, but then you start getting in the territory of betting games you don't have as much of an edge on.
Shrimp,
Not being terribly calculatory (I might have just made that word up), can you tell me the profitability of playing 2 team parlays that pay greater than 2.6 to one on dogs?
I play small parlays at Olympic, mostly because they will pay much better odds on parlays involving dog monelines. Playing a two dog hockey parlay last night paid 4.17 to one, a 3 teamer paid 10.4 - 1
I got burned at other books where even though they claim high odds, thats only if you play -110 moneylines, anything higher reverts to standard odds. Olympic is great in this regard
Not being terribly calculatory (I might have just made that word up), can you tell me the profitability of playing 2 team parlays that pay greater than 2.6 to one on dogs?
I play small parlays at Olympic, mostly because they will pay much better odds on parlays involving dog monelines. Playing a two dog hockey parlay last night paid 4.17 to one, a 3 teamer paid 10.4 - 1
I got burned at other books where even though they claim high odds, thats only if you play -110 moneylines, anything higher reverts to standard odds. Olympic is great in this regard
I'm out of here until tomorrow, but if you ask a more specific question about it, I can answer it.acehistr8 said:
In general, if you think each game is worth it at +150, then the parlay is worth it, too.
I'll put in an example tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it, but I'm out of here for now.
TheShrimp
I like doing parlays for fun with low wagers although it can really be mind boggling how often I lose them on weird stuff. For example, this past Sunday I had NO/Wash over (easy), Atl/NYG under (easy) and Pitt/Cincy over 41.5. You'd have thought I was looking good at half for that one and then when Zeroue scored, I felt really good...only to see that little flag pop up and I knew exactly what had happened....Oh well, they're still fun.
I have lost many times on parlays because I picked too many games. The whole idea of increasing your odds can make you greedy and think unclearly when choosing. I used to win about 80% of my parlays because I'd bet no more than three games. When I started to bet 4-6 games, after I would say to myself, maybe I shouldn't have picked that one play or those two plays. Sure enough One of those would lose and I'd be out $. Stick to small plays and ones you really think may win. They can be profitable but they are riskier. Also, I never put a lot of money on parlays. Small bets and good plays are the key to winning parlays. That's my personal opinion.
Straight bets are for your everyday dinner of meat & potatoes, you can't live without them.
Parlays are for lunch money. You know, you can skip lunch a few days a week & not notice
Teasers are for Pizza money only, once a week ! (points come into play in a foot game much less than the average player thinks. Don't believe it? Keep the stats for a season & find out.)
Hey, it is hard enough to pick one winner, now you need 2 !! ??
Puh lease.
As has been said, books simply love teaser players (why do u think they call them teasers) & like parlay players.
Parlays are great when you hit them, lousy when you don't, it is that simple. They cannot be a staple food of your diet, just a supplementary vitamin sort of thing. I have found over the years they work best when complimenting your straight wagers. Anyone that plays parlays only, will get eaten alive unless you are very lucky. Or, hit a few big ones at the beginning of the season to carry you later.
Watch the seasoned bettors on this site..............none will tease . And, the ones that do parlay bets use them as ssecondary bets only.
GL & Hit One For Me..........THE HITMAN
Parlays are for lunch money. You know, you can skip lunch a few days a week & not notice
Teasers are for Pizza money only, once a week ! (points come into play in a foot game much less than the average player thinks. Don't believe it? Keep the stats for a season & find out.)
Hey, it is hard enough to pick one winner, now you need 2 !! ??
Puh lease.
As has been said, books simply love teaser players (why do u think they call them teasers) & like parlay players.
Parlays are great when you hit them, lousy when you don't, it is that simple. They cannot be a staple food of your diet, just a supplementary vitamin sort of thing. I have found over the years they work best when complimenting your straight wagers. Anyone that plays parlays only, will get eaten alive unless you are very lucky. Or, hit a few big ones at the beginning of the season to carry you later.
Watch the seasoned bettors on this site..............none will tease . And, the ones that do parlay bets use them as ssecondary bets only.
GL & Hit One For Me..........THE HITMAN
what valuist said except i stick to the 2 and 3 teamers.
anything else should be simply recreational(if you hit it, consider yourself very lucky).
anything else should be simply recreational(if you hit it, consider yourself very lucky).
Parlays are only good when one outcome helps effect the outcome of another. For example: As mentioned in previous posts, parlaying a fav with the over---dog with the under when the spread is 1/3 or more of the total.
i.e Houston 42
Indianapolis -17
Okay parlay situation; Fav and Over, Dog and Under
This is the math for 2-teams vs straight bets.
4 possible combinations AA AB BA BB
A represents a win...........B represents a loss
$110 parlay best price straight bets $55, $55 = $110
(-110,-110) = 3.64/1
AA Win $400.91 AA Win $105 + Win $105 = $210
AB Lose AB Win $105 + Lose = $105
BA Lose BA Lose + Win $105 = $105
BB Lose BB Lose + Lose = Lose
Total: spent $440 Total: spent $440
returned $400.91 returned $420
Result: Staight bets are always a better deal.
i.e Houston 42
Indianapolis -17
Okay parlay situation; Fav and Over, Dog and Under
This is the math for 2-teams vs straight bets.
4 possible combinations AA AB BA BB
A represents a win...........B represents a loss
$110 parlay best price straight bets $55, $55 = $110
(-110,-110) = 3.64/1
AA Win $400.91 AA Win $105 + Win $105 = $210
AB Lose AB Win $105 + Lose = $105
BA Lose BA Lose + Win $105 = $105
BB Lose BB Lose + Lose = Lose
Total: spent $440 Total: spent $440
returned $400.91 returned $420
Result: Staight bets are always a better deal.
3 teamers
3 teamers
Books will reduce the vig on 3 team parlays in order to give bettors a nice even payout. 3 team parlays ARE A GOOD BET. 2 team parlays charge slighly more juice than straight bets but not much.
4 team & up parlays don't pay enough and should be avoided.
The main problem with betting parlays is if you start betting too many games, as JDH pointed out above.
I play parlays extensively during baseball season, usually parlaying a favorite with another game to get a better payout.
Teasers are only profitable for the very best sports bettors and then only in the NFL.
3 teamers
Books will reduce the vig on 3 team parlays in order to give bettors a nice even payout. 3 team parlays ARE A GOOD BET. 2 team parlays charge slighly more juice than straight bets but not much.
4 team & up parlays don't pay enough and should be avoided.
The main problem with betting parlays is if you start betting too many games, as JDH pointed out above.
I play parlays extensively during baseball season, usually parlaying a favorite with another game to get a better payout.
Teasers are only profitable for the very best sports bettors and then only in the NFL.
Teasers are called teasers for a reason.But on the other hand , teams were 21-6-1 with seven pts. toward the line this weekend.
Teasers can be very effective when used in the correct manner (much like anything I guess!).
While I agree in part with Valuist, teasing games over key numbers is the only way to play them.
There are only 3 situations in which I will tease a game:
to get an 'under' number higher than 38....
to get a fav past a key number (3,7 or 10)
to get a 'dog past the same numbers.
So far this season I've won a 5 team teaser, a 3 team teaser and lost a 5 team teaser.
In the 2 winners no less than 4 games won only due to the extra points.
Even the one that lost had one (Buff -2 last week...the only loser was Oak -2 ).
I'm the first to admit I've probably been lucky, but as I said, used 'properly' teasers can be an effective tool IMO.
EDIT: Also teasing Carolina and the under is a perfect 6-0 this year, and I see no reason why this won't continue
While I agree in part with Valuist, teasing games over key numbers is the only way to play them.
There are only 3 situations in which I will tease a game:
to get an 'under' number higher than 38....
to get a fav past a key number (3,7 or 10)
to get a 'dog past the same numbers.
So far this season I've won a 5 team teaser, a 3 team teaser and lost a 5 team teaser.
In the 2 winners no less than 4 games won only due to the extra points.
Even the one that lost had one (Buff -2 last week...the only loser was Oak -2
).I'm the first to admit I've probably been lucky, but as I said, used 'properly' teasers can be an effective tool IMO.
EDIT: Also teasing Carolina and the under is a perfect 6-0 this year, and I see no reason why this won't continue
Last edited:
This table you made is right, but it ignores the chances of you hitting a game. IF you have a 50/50 chance on any game, then any row in your table is as equally likely to occur as any other, and then you are right to say that straight bets are better. Imagine if you had 2 LOCKS, and I mean that literally, they were 100% to come in. Then you would obviously want to parlay them. The closer you are to 100% the more profitable the parlay becomes for you.alb said:
If you can pick games correctly 54% percent of the time, then ROW 1 in your table will come up about 30% of the time, rows 2&3 about 25% of the time each (50% total), and row 4 will come up about 20% of the time. In that case, parlays are better because row 1 is the row where the big payout comes from the parlay.
To acehistr8, the easiest way to think about parlays (and most sports betting) is just like playing drawing hands in poker. So, if you want to parlay a dog getting +130 with a dog getting +160, you're getting paid about 5-1 on that (2.3*2.6 = 5.98 = your return on a 1 dollar bet). So, basically, you play that parlay if you think it is better than 5:1 against (a 1/6 shot, about 12%). If you think each team has a 50/50 shot at winning, then the chance of hitting them both is .25, and a fair price would be 3:1 (.75:.25).
Of course, any bet you make can be thought of like this. A lot of times if I play a ML dog, it will be a game where I think the outcome is truly 50/50 but the dog is getting +140 or something. Better than even money on an, in theory, even money propostition. Or as an example, last weekend, I was getting 3-1 on the Rams straight up. I might not have thought that they were even 1:1 to win that game, but I thought they were much better than 3-1 to win it, maybe 2.5-1. I was getting good odds on my "call".
Notice that betting the point spreads can be thought of like this. They, supposedly, make a bet a 1:1 propositiion, but you only get paid 10:11 on it. You're not getting proper odds on your "call", unless you are >52.4% sure that you hit that game. 52.4 being the magic, break-even, pecentage. Not-coincidentally, 52.4% is the break-even point of playing parlays too. Anything above that, it is more profitable to parlay. Anything below that, it is less profitable to parlay. This jives with what I said about ALB's table.
A 4-team parlay is no different. It might be like drawing to your one-outer (45-1 against) when the pot is $500 and the bet is $10. You're not going to hit many of them, and you could go a LONG time without hitting one but if you actually have an edge when playing them, in the long run they can be profitable.
Anyway, to sum up a bit:
Parlays are not necessarily profitable or unprofitable. Basically, if you KNOW you have an edge, they are more profitable, but more variable (higher risk, higher return). If you hit games at 50% or less, then they are less profitable, as ALB wrote up. Considering that most people betting are probably 50/50 or worse, it's no wonder a lot of people think they're bad bets.
A lot of what I wrote assumes you could possibly know something like "I have a 54% chance of hitting this game". That's difficult to know. The thing is with parlays, you might have a 54% chance of hitting a game, but by the time you get to the 4th team in your parlay, you're probably looking at a 50% chance, pushing the parlay into negative expectation.
