All said it shouldn't be done. Some said it couldn't be done. None thought it would be done. I have DONE IT!

[rito]

Did you even read the thread? Obviously not.

 

You are the one that comes off as a retard. 1. What you claimed is not true. 2. If there was a perceived +ev correlated parlay, then according to you and -FH-, books would not allow you to wager on it anyway.

 

So moot point.

 

And W2W again wastes his time and energy in a thread, only to once again be made a fool of by Uncle D.

 

Well done.

 

There are different levels of correlation and every book decides for itself what they want to allow and what not.  I may disagree on whether something is sufficiently correlated to be a +ev parlay.   If I win and I play at a shit book, they'll probably just steal the money, but a good book will adjust their metrics.

[Sol Aristatel]

There are different levels of correlation and every book decides for itself what they want to allow and what not. I may disagree on whether something is sufficiently correlated to be a +ev parlay. If I win and I play at a shit book, they'll probably just steal the money, but a good book will adjust their metrics.

Of course there are different levels. Just like you can't parlay run lines with the totals with baseball bets.

 

Your post has nothing to do with W2W making a fool of himself. 1. He stated something that wasnt true. 2. Then implied that books wont let you wager on +EV correlated parlays. 3. Which if true, then the point is moot since you cant bet them anyway.

 

He's a blow hard dullard.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Ok. But Im not talking about straight vig by itself. Im looking at the whole picture. And Ill stand by my claim.

 

If Im trying to grind out a living doing this, Ill choose 3 straight bets at -110 vs betting nothing but three team parlays at -110. More +ev in the long term with all things equal.

 

Incorrect.

 

EV on three -110 wagers with 54% win probability:

 

((0.54*1)-((1-0.54)*1.1))*3 = 0.1020

 

EV on one 3-team parlay @ 6/1 with 54% win probability:

 

((0.54^3)*6)-(((1-0.54)^3)*1) = 0.8474

[rito]

Of course there are different levels. Just like you can't parlay run lines with the totals with baseball bets.

 

Your post has nothing to do with W2W making a fool of himself. 1. He stated something that wasnt true. 2. Then implied that books wont let you wager on +EV correlated parlays. 3. Which if true, then the point is moot since you cant bet them anyway.

 

He's a blow hard dullard.

 

Yea I wasn't paying attention to that part.

[FISHHEAD]

There are different levels of correlation and every book decides for itself what they want to allow and what not.

.

 

This

[Sol Aristatel]

Incorrect.

 

EV on three -110 wagers with 54% win probability:

 

((0.54*1)-((1-0.54)*1.1))*3 = 0.1020

 

EV on one 3-team parlay @ 6/1 with 54% win probability:

 

((0.54^3)*6)-(((1-0.54)^3)*1) = 0.8474

What's incorrect?

 

You are saying betting nothing but 3 team parlays at 6:1 -110 is more EV than betting straight wagers at -110?

 

1. Is this what you are saying?

2. If so, why would anyone ever bet straight bets?

3. Are you a professional 3 team parlay bettor?

[MonkeyF0cker]

What's incorrect?

 

You are saying betting nothing but 3 team parlays at 6:1 -110 is more EV than betting straight wagers at -110?

 

1. Is this what you are saying?

2. If so, why would anyone ever bet straight bets?

3. Are you a professional 3 team parlay bettor?

 

1.  It's not what I'm saying.  It's what math is saying.

2.  Because they don't like the variance of parlays.

3.  Not strictly and not the majority of my wagers, but I know some who only bet parlays.

[Guest boatboatboat]

The Cat is being let outa the bag. 

[FISHHEAD]

 

 

Diabler, if you feel and know you can hit 54% and are staring at three LINES you LIKE in a sportsbook.......

 

Cards -3.5

Packers -3.5

Giants -3.5

 

 

......should you bet all three straight at -110 or parlay the three at 6-1?

[Sol Aristatel]

1. It's not what I'm saying. It's what math is saying.

2. Because they don't like the variance of parlays.

3. Not strictly and not the majority of my wagers, but I know some who only bet parlays.

But variance HAS to be factored in. How could you not consider it when it can be a factor in the bottom line at the end of a day?

[Guest boatboatboat]

Diabler, if you feel and know you can hit 54% and are staring at three LINES you LIKE in a sportsbook.......

 

Cards -3.5

Packers -3.5

Giants -3.5

 

 

......should you bet all three straight at -110 or parlay the three at 6-1?

depends

 

one could score 3 drink tickets by doing the separate wagers at various times.

 

So in Dubs case where he is betting $5 a game he without a doubt should do the 3 separate wagers 

[FISHHEAD]

But variance HAS to be factored in. How could you not consider it when it can be a factor in the bottom line at the end of a day?

Would you rather play a videopoker paytable with a 100.1% payback and low variance.... or one with a 101.8% paytable with high variance????

[Sol Aristatel]

Diabler, if you feel and know you can hit 54% and are staring at three LINES you LIKE in a sportsbook.......

 

Cards -3.5

Packers -3.5

Giants -3.5

 

 

......should you bet all three straight at -110 or parlay the three at 6-1?

There is a problem with your scenario here. How can I be positive that with these 3 particular plays, thet I have a 54% chance of winning them? Just because Ive had a good run in the past, that means I cant count on that happening in the future?

 

Variance has to be a factor.

 

Again, if people want to argue the math is in favor of doing 3 teamers over straight bets, then why do they even bother with straight bets?

 

There's a reason.

[MonkeyF0cker]

But variance HAS to be factored in. How could you not consider it when it can be a factor in the bottom line at the end of a day?

 

Variance/EG is a different argument than EV.

[Sol Aristatel]

depends

 

one could score 3 drink tickets by doing the separate wagers at various times.

 

So in Dubs case where he is betting $5 a game he without a doubt should do the 3 separate wagers

Passive aggressive and sarcastic! My kind of guy. Love it.

[WeinkeToWarrick]

Diabler let me parlay hockey run lines with totals and we'll see who the tool is

[Guest boatboatboat]

Dubs people are trying to help you here.

 

over and over and over you say things that FH and others are just blow hards they don't ever really help people.

 

Then when they try rather then realizing someone like FH in this case who makes a living gambling, may just have a better perspective than a gym teacher from Arizona you argue with them

[Sol Aristatel]

Variance/EG are a different argument than EV.

Fair enough. I will accept that. Perhaps Im just using the wrong labels for my argument.

 

But Im not backing off my main point here. Parlays over straight bets with everything equal, with no perceived "edge", is for suckers.

 

And if one thinks they have an "edge", then Id even question the validity of that. Every game and every situation is different. Your recent or even long term past success, cannot necessarily translate into the same result in the future.

[FISHHEAD]

Would you rather play a videopoker paytable with a 100.1% payback and low variance.... or one with a 101.8% paytable with high variance????

Bump

[Sol Aristatel]

Diabler let me parlay hockey run lines with totals and we'll see who the tool is

Thats completely irrelevant to the conversation and your burial here.

[Sol Aristatel]

[FISHHEAD]

Not to change the subject......

 

But Diabler, Good call on the Seahawks line this week.

[Sol Aristatel]

And also, you are completely off base with my views towards -FH-. I believe he is a very sharp guy. I believe he is very wise with all of his years of experience. I think he is a nice guy. I think he is very generous.

 

None of that has anything to do with me not believing all of his forum stories over the years. He can be all of the above things, and at the very least, be somewhat of an exaggerator as well.

 

Im not sure why you cant accept that he can be all those things.

[WeinkeToWarrick]

Thats completely irrelevant to the conversation and your burial here.

Hardly.

 

No books that will pay you will take a correlated +EV parlay anymore because they realized it benefits the player to make such parlays.

 

But you seemed to think that such a +EV parlay couldn't exist because "every game is different and nobody can possibly win long term on parlays because even though you think you have an edge how do you really know"

 

I'm done with you, retard. Keep pounding that keyboard and thinking you've won something.

[Guest boatboatboat]

Thats completely irrelevant to the conversation and your burial here.

no