Correlated Parlays - Discussion

[~Falco~]

this is why these threads have less posts ensignlee...people like falco

could you expand on the comment?

What??? I pointed out some simple math causing the blind to see or was it my mention of G.A. that scared you?

just curious.

 

[fhmesq44]

fmhesq44 ask for my email address form one of the mods! thanks.

You have mail

 

[quantumleap]

Riddle me this Batman,

- last year USC was -39 and o/u was 57 against Stanford. How can you claim that USC is just as likely to cover a 39 point spread AND keep the game under 57 as Stanford is to cover that 39 and stay under 57? How is the number of points USC scores NOT correlated to the total number of points in the game? If USC covers, they score at least 40 points. Or, even better, USC was -49 against Idaho and o/u was 58.5.

- if there is no player advantage, why do virtually no books take parlays on games such as the above (go try to parlay the UT or A&M games this weekend, favorite to over and dog to under).

- today, in soccer, Hertha Berlin is -2 with an o/u of 2.5. By your logic, Hertha is just as likely to cover (25% chance) -2 AND stay under 2.5 (an actual impossibility) as their opponent is to cover +2 and stay under.

I believe the factor here is that the underdogs are not counted on scoring enough points to cause the score to go over. USC may be favored by 49 but if Idaho is not deemed to be able to score 10 points or more then there is no advantage to parlaying. There is also a little correlation between USC's points scored and Idaho's points scored since the more USC scores the more they give Idaho the opportunity to score but that is already factored into the lines.

I first thought of these with soccer matches like you did and wondered why spreads were so close to totals some times. It is because the dog is not considered to score enough goals to cause the total to go over even if the favorite pushed on the line. Hertha may not cover the -2 and have the total stay under but they can push -2 while having the total stay under and then you've lost your bet.

 

[steaktartar]

could you expand on the comment?

What??? I pointed out some simple math causing the blind to see or was it my mention of G.A. that scared you?

just curious.

no i wont expand......it will get into something ugly probably......no need

 

[fhmesq44]

I believe the factor here is that the underdogs are not counted on scoring enough points to cause the score to go over. USC may be favored by 49 but if Idaho is not deemed to be able to score 10 points or more then there is no advantage to parlaying. There is also a little correlation between USC's points scored and Idaho's points scored since the more USC scores the more they give Idaho the opportunity to score but that is already factored into the lines.

I first thought of these with soccer matches like you did and wondered why spreads were so close to totals some times. It is because the dog is not considered to score enough goals to cause the total to go over even if the favorite pushed on the line. Hertha may not cover the -2 and have the total stay under but they can push -2 while having the total stay under and then you've lost your bet.

You would lose 1 bet entirely and win half of the other, so you would only lose the juice in the Hertha situation. You can't even parlay game to total in soccer, same goes with baseball run lines to totals.

 

[VIEJODINOSAUR]

We had this dicussion last year with many responses....Books like CRIS and Pinny don't cut back on these parlays for nothing...some intelligent bettors get rich betting these things...

 

[steaktartar]

We had this dicussion last year with many responses....Books like CRIS and Pinny don't cut back on these parlays for nothing...some intelligent bettors get rich betting these things...

pinny doesnt take them and hasnt for years cris quit taking them two years ago(ON THE SEVERE ONES)

CRIS even quit baseball RL to the totals this year...........they've seen the light

 

[steaktartar]

We had this dicussion last year with many responses....Books like CRIS and Pinny don't cut back on these parlays for nothing...some intelligent bettors get rich betting these things...

it says invalid combination max limit 0

 

[VIEJODINOSAUR]

With CFB around the corner I figured I would start this to get some thoughts on what makes a parlay correlated enough to provide an advantage. The below link was posted by someone last year and proposes 33%.


Correlated enough???:lol:

As Forrest would say, "Stupid is as stupid does" There is no such thing as correlation between 2 mutually exclusive events meaning there is no cause and effect. There is no correlation between the Total and the Side, it just appears that way, an illusion you might say.

But it gets worse, lets say you reside in a parallel universe and a correlation does exist. Then you would have to buck the following basic parlay math :

WW=W
WL=L
WT=L
LL+L

Notice that out of the 4 possible outcomes to your parlay bet only one of them is a winner.

1 winning outcome that is 3 to 1 against you winning your wager. If you do win, do they pay you 3 to 1 odds? Of course not. Its butt ugly odds against you . (Some places will give a straight up win on that WT or a Tie and give your money back so its 2 to 1 against).

Again IF there was such a thing as correlation the odds are completely skewed in their favor.

Sucker bets are for people that don't have a basic understanding of math.

If you have a desire to bet Parlays after understanding the simple math may I recommend GA.

I will bet you these parlays all day and will make you a poor man....

 

[VIEJODINOSAUR]

pinny doesnt take them and hasnt for years cris quit taking them two years ago(ON THE SEVERE ONES)

CRIS even quit baseball RL to the totals this year...........they've seen the light

Cor. Parlays are still given to the suckers, 100 bucks and below....the guys here at CRIS are laughing about this as I type...taking a break from my afternoon games, if you know what I mean STEAK...

 

[GreenDoberman]

Agree with ensign lee that these threads are devoid of the traffic that the drama-driven threads have and that is a shame.

To try and clear up some misconceptions for Falco and others there is a difference between correlated and positively correlated. Then there is a difference between positive correlation and something with a positive correlation large enough to create a positive EV situation.

True when taken as independent, non-correlated factors a two-team parlay would offer odds that are negative -EV. Without getting into the math too deep however, there is a point where the spread and total reach a correlation positive enough to overcome the house advantage.

Some have said 33% and some say 40%. My general rule of thumb is 3/1 or 33%.

I'm sure someone can break it down algebraically for us, but using those off the top figures should be good enough.

Correct me someone if I am wrong on this:

Total divided by spread < 3 = Positive EV

 

[fhmesq44]

Falco, are you 1RealCapper?

http://therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=520972&highlight=correlated+parlay

 

[fhmesq44]

Agree with ensign lee that these threads are devoid of the traffic that the drama-driven threads have and that is a shame.

To try and clear up some misconceptions for Falco and others there is a difference between correlated and positively correlated. Then there is a difference between positive correlation and something with a positive correlation large enough to create a positive EV situation.

True when taken as independent, non-correlated factors a two-team parlay would offer odds that are negative -EV. Without getting into the math too deep however, there is a point where the spread and total reach a correlation positive enough to overcome the house advantage.

Some have said 33% and some say 40%. My general rule of thumb is 3/1 or 33%.

I'm sure someone can break it down algebraically for us, but using those off the top figures should be good enough.

Correct me someone if I am wrong on this:

Total divided by spread < 3 = Positive EV

That seems to be what people contend. Sorry if posting this is a no-no, but there was some discussion a couple years back at SBR, Ganchrow seems to think 33% will suffice.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/college-football-handicapping/16703-winning-parlay-system.html

 

[~Falco~]

don't get caught up on the correlation semantics (there is none) simple math tells you that for every 4 bets you'll win 1 and lose 3 thats -$230 every 4 wagers.

This does not apply to Viejodinosaur who is the exeption to the mathematical probabilities that govern the rest of us mortals. Viejo will make us all poor with his 1+1=3 approach. "Viejo prestame cinco dolares"

(Viejo lend me 5 bucks)

:cripwalk:

 

[VIEJODINOSAUR]

don't get caught up on the correlation semantics (there is none) simple math tells you that for every 4 bets you'll win 1 and lose 3 thats -$230 every 4 wagers.

This does not apply to Viejodinosaur who is the exeption to the mathematical probabilities that govern the rest of us mortals. Viejo will make us all poor with his 1+1=3 approach. "Viejo prestame cinco dolares"

(Viejo lend me 5 bucks)

:cripwalk:

You can get a fin from me anytime....but promise not to bet it back on a correalted parlay against me....1+1 sometimes equals 3......a wise man taught me that back in the prehistoric days!

 

[quantumleap]

You can get a fin from me anytime....but promise not to bet it back on a correalted parlay against me....1+1 sometimes equals 3......a wise man taught me that back in the prehistoric days!

That's called "Dinosaur Math" for those of you who may not know.

:lol:

 

[quantumleap]

don't get caught up on the correlation semantics (there is none) simple math tells you that for every 4 bets you'll win 1 and lose 3 thats -$230 every 4 wagers.

This does not apply to Viejodinosaur who is the exeption to the mathematical probabilities that govern the rest of us mortals. Viejo will make us all poor with his 1+1=3 approach. "Viejo prestame cinco dolares"

(Viejo lend me 5 bucks)

:cripwalk:

Where do you come up with the -230.

:think2:

Not every book pays the same for parlays so you can't say that is a definite.

I would be happy to win 1 out of every 4 if the odds were in my favor.

:drink:

 

[$tinky]

Do books in vegas take these plays?

Chicken shits probably won't even have a total up

 

[Doug]

don't get caught up on the correlation semantics (there is none) simple math tells you that for every 4 bets you'll win 1 and lose 3 thats -$230 every 4 wagers.

This does not apply to Viejodinosaur who is the exeption to the mathematical probabilities that govern the rest of us mortals. Viejo will make us all poor with his 1+1=3 approach. "Viejo prestame cinco dolares"

(Viejo lend me 5 bucks)

:cripwalk:[/quot


with standard $100 bets

total risk is $400, catch one, win $260 + the $100 returned= lose $40. This would be accurate for parlaying unrelated bets, like two different sides, and the picks are 50% type random plays

There is definite correlation with spreads over 30% of the total, and they will win much better than 25% of the time, thus books don't take them, or void them later if you win ( Sportsbook.com).

The plays aren't equally distributed in correlated parlays.

17.5 point spread, and 31.5 total for example.

It would be closer to this :

Dog and under... 35%
Fav and over ... 35%
Dog and over... 20%
Fav and under... 10%


The first two are profitable, you can blindly play both of them on the same game... if the book will take it, AND pay it.

 

[Railbird]

Funny how little discussion actually happens when a topic that actually has substance comes up.

Threads like this and that bankroll management thread with calculus involved should be the ones with the most replies, not the least.

not + ev to discuss.