not really sir, not in my opinion. i can't really explain it and i can't prove it, but like i said, my experience has taught me that when i'm on the right side i would have been right on BOTH sides. i'm your average bettor, just trying to keep his head above water and wondering what the fuck is the point sometimes, but i think there is promise in this. my 30% ass will kick your 55% ass....:grandmais
not really sir, not in my opinion. i can't really explain it and i can't prove it, but like i said, my experience has taught me that when i'm on the right side i would have been right on BOTH sides. i'm your average bettor, just trying to keep his head above water and wondering what the fuck is the point sometimes, but i think there is promise in this. my 30% ass will kick your 55% ass....:grandmais
Soonerdawg - you are not wrong in the analysis for you as you don't know you have an edge everytime you bet.
For those very few that "know" they have an edge every time them nothing wrong in parlays despite the math of the parlay.
Further benefit to that type of betting is that if you are a long term successful bettor and make your profit via parlays the accounts you have are likely to stay open and unrestricted for longer.
I joined a sportsbook many years ago as horse racing and golf risk manager and went through records of a guy that bet 3 player parlays on golf week in and week out showing massive profits over many years and asked "why isn't this guy restricted?" to which I was replied from the Head of Risk Management "Oh he's just lucky, how can you win doing trebles(parlays) long-term?"
For those very few that "know" they have an edge every time them nothing wrong in parlays despite the math of the parlay.
Further benefit to that type of betting is that if you are a long term successful bettor and make your profit via parlays the accounts you have are likely to stay open and unrestricted for longer.
I joined a sportsbook many years ago as horse racing and golf risk manager and went through records of a guy that bet 3 player parlays on golf week in and week out showing massive profits over many years and asked "why isn't this guy restricted?" to which I was replied from the Head of Risk Management "Oh he's just lucky, how can you win doing trebles(parlays) long-term?"
it'd be nice to get restricted for my success, but at my levels i think they'd use me as a success story to promote their book before letting me go.
seriously though, when i put this thread up, i thought it would be inundated with people telling me how this had been done a thousand times. i appreciate the responses and i will start a thread in the baseball forum to try out my theory as a token of appreciation for the input.
as far as winning 2 team parlays on a regular basis....no....but i wouldn't mind a .330 win percentage
You won't hit 30%. You absolutely have zero chance of hitting 33%.
Just saying, I know it sounds easy. Everyone can point to a game here or there and say, "I knew I should have parlayed it." But over the course of a season, you will find that 30% is almost impossible.
You asked for thoughts, and those are my thoughts. Really, they aren't even my thoughts. They are just the math that it takes to hit 30%. And it's 55%.
Are you a 55% capper? If you were, you wouldn't be asking this question. You probably wouldn't even be posting in this forum.
sounds good bro, the gist of the idea is overs/unders in baseball or typical sides/totals in every other sport. parlaying a -165 with a -140 kind of defeats the purpose of assuming +2.5 on a $10 bet for accuracy purposes......
but yeah, i like to be obnoxious in the pub thread, so if you could keep the nonsense out that would be cool.:cripwalk:
With regard to your mention of "parlaying -140, -165" being harder to track, I'll point you to my first post in the just created 2TeamersOnly thread
That is, if you track your Average Risk amount, you can after enough selections measure if you're properly managing the money
For example, we've all figured the numbers on flat betting of -110 and know that it takes just over 52.5% on your selections to have a net profit if betting same amount each wager
But you can also calculate any "average risk"
In my ongoing MLB thread, NBA thread and NHL threads of past year I tracked my average Risk
And for the most part it was right about +114
That meant I could have just a 47% success on my individual selections and make a profit on 100 wagers
47 x 114 = 5358
Once you know what your Average Risk is, you can easily calculate how many of your selections must win in order to make a profit.
And you can also get a better sense if you need to taper it back a bit (for example, if I'm not hitting enough Winners, it might suggest I'm pushing just a bit too hard on Dog prices and I should mix in a few more Fave prices....and vice-versa)
That is, if you track your Average Risk amount, you can after enough selections measure if you're properly managing the money
For example, we've all figured the numbers on flat betting of -110 and know that it takes just over 52.5% on your selections to have a net profit if betting same amount each wager
But you can also calculate any "average risk"
In my ongoing MLB thread, NBA thread and NHL threads of past year I tracked my average Risk
And for the most part it was right about +114
That meant I could have just a 47% success on my individual selections and make a profit on 100 wagers
47 x 114 = 5358
Once you know what your Average Risk is, you can easily calculate how many of your selections must win in order to make a profit.
And you can also get a better sense if you need to taper it back a bit (for example, if I'm not hitting enough Winners, it might suggest I'm pushing just a bit too hard on Dog prices and I should mix in a few more Fave prices....and vice-versa)
