NFL Parlays vs. Spread Bets

Subject: NFL parlay bets vs. spread bets

A lot say that parlays are sucker bets because of the higher HA. But that is not always true.

A 3 team parlay pays 6/1 (at most places) and carries a house edge of 12.5%.

A spread bet pays 10/11 and carries a house edge of 4.55%.

So, if you win a 3 team parlay betting $100 you get paid back $700 and you actually won $600.

But if you had parlayed 3 spread bets yourself this is what would have happened:

First bet $100 win $91

2nd bet bet $191 win $173.81

3rd bet $364.81 win $328.33

You would get paid back $693.14 (including pennies for example purposes)

The cost of your spread bet parlay was $100 and you won only $593.14 which is less than the book would have paid you.

So, you are better off with the book's parlay than by doing it yourself if the betting choices of teams is the same. And all of the wiseguys who say parlays are sucker bets are wrong.

Why? Because in doing the parlay yourself the house edge cuts into you 3 times. The book's parlay offering only cuts into you only once.

It's only a small difference but still over time can be significant.

LarryS will be on here shortly to comment on this. This is no longer VCT, it is LCT- Larry Constantly Talking

HS
The disadvantage of a parlay that you leave out is that you must bet it before the first game starts. And you eliminate your ability to pull back one of the other 2 bets if something changes, like weather, or a player sitting out. Sometimes thats worth 5 bucks and change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

HS
The disadvantage of a parlay that you leave out is that you must bet it before the first game starts. And you eliminate your ability to pull back one of the other 2 bets if something changes, like weather, or a player sitting out. Sometimes thats worth 5 bucks and change

---

True, but you also have the ability to do it when all 3 games go off at the same time as they often do in the NFL and you should be able to have all relevant updated info. And you can't do 3 games going off at the same time with a self directed parlay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LarryS

HS
The disadvantage of a parlay that you leave out is that you must bet it before the first game starts. And you eliminate your ability to pull back one of the other 2 bets if something changes, like weather, or a player sitting out. Sometimes thats worth 5 bucks and change

---

Halfsmoke, you've fallen for what the books want you to think. You missed a key element. LarryS, you should be able to get this one. What's the big problem with what Halfsmoke has proposed as a way to bet? He failed to delineate a key caveat.

If nobody gets this right, and it's obvious, I'll report back after the hoops today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz;61436[/QUOTE

He failed to delineate a key caveat.

---

I think you might be talking about increased variance. There are a few other considerations. I wasn't trying to mention every angle of the thing. But maybe I missed something even more important. I'll wait for your answer.

No, it's pretty simple. The math you presented works ONLY IF THE SPREADS ARE IDENTICAL FOR ALL GAMES AT ALL BOOKS.

Sportsbooks don't want you to shop. Having bettors shop is the bane of their existence.

Shopping for the best numbers is absolutely critical. The math presented above works only if the spreads for all of the games are absolutely identical everywhere, which is highly unlikely. If one of the games at the book at which one proposes to bet a parlay is off by just half a point to the worse of somewhere else, buying that half a point (if it's even allowed) flips the math the other way and makes the parlay the inferior bet. And many places do not allow the buying of the extra half point or point with parlays.

So the question presented above ignores the entire theme of shopping for the best numbers, which is a core element of sports betting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

So the question presented above ignores the entire theme of shopping for the best numbers, which is a core element of sports betting.

---

Okay, point well taken. I also failed to mention that after the # 3 teams, when you go to 4, 5 or more the house edge starts to skyrocket and the point is no longer valid.

Also, according to a blog by the Wizard of Odds updated on December 2014 Jerry's Nugget was paying way more than the competition on parlays including 6.5/1 on a 3 teamer.

I don't bet in Vegas and that's more than 3 years ago so I don't know if that's still true. If it is still true it is definitely something to consider when trying to find the best bet.

I'm guessing that you are knowledgeable about the competition in Vegas lines so maybe you know the answer as to whether Jerry's Nugget is still offering this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

So the question presented above ignores the entire theme of shopping for the best numbers, which is a core element of sports betting.

---

Okay, point well taken. I also failed to mention that after the # 3 teams, when you go to 4, 5 or more the house edge starts to skyrocket and the point is no longer valid.

Also, according to a blog by the Wizard of Odds updated on December 2014 Jerry's Nugget was paying way more than the competition on parlays including 6.5/1 on a 3 teamer.

I don't bet in Vegas and that's more than 3 years ago so I don't know if that's still true. If it is still true it is definitely something to consider when trying to find the best bet.

I'm guessing that you are knowledgeable about the competition in Vegas lines so maybe you know the answer as to whether Jerry's Nugget is still offering this.

---

I actually don't know. I almost never bet parlays, so I'm not really knowledgeable regarding parlays off the board. I used to keep tabs on the parlay card odds, but that was a long time ago, like when the Barbary Coast was the Barbary Coast and had the best odds.

First, in your example I could not roll over the bets if the games are going on at the same time. It would have to be a 10 am game, a 1:15 PM GAME and sunday night or monday night.

Secondly,if you are betting in the long run, you know that a year where you have 57-58 percent success rate is excellent. If you bet flat you make money with that rate assuming equal size bets. However with a 3 teamer, you can have a 66 perecent success rate and you lose.

Add to that the freedom of pulling back money before you bet on the next game (in your original scenario where someone just lets it ride on the next game twice more)...its not really a good value.

If you see dan here....he bets just before the game in basketball. Thats the way to do it if you can....because the more info you have the better you can determin if you want to bet at all or the size of your bet.

If you are in vegas for a weekend, and dont bet the rest of the year....sure..bet however you want. Do a 10 teamer for kicks. But if in the long run you know that 57 percent is damn good......3 teamers dont look so hot...because 66 percent can give you zero.

What do you guys think of this strategy. You sacrifice having the most up to date info. You scope out the lines very early, as early as they come out. The public often way overbets the favorite. So, you are looking for a good deal on a favorite (but not a ridiculously obvious favorite like the Warriors where the books already know the public will be all over them) before the public pushes the line out of whack. Of course, an equally strong strategy would be to bet against the favorite after the public has pushed the line out of whack. As far as betting before you have every possible piece of info - to me that's a zero sum thing. Because something like a coach deciding not to have a player suit up because of a questionable injury could go either for you or against you. There's no reason it necessarily will go against you.

yes but in a 3 team parlay, that covers alot of palyers, and all it takes is for a late injury, arrest, disciplinary action to go against you in one game...and you lose on all 3...even if the QB on the other 2 teams were held out.

I do watch lines especially on hockey. For example the opening line may be -145 and I may like it, but as it gets close to gametime it creeps down to -118. I would definatley drop that play especially if I didnt know of an injury to cause it.

With football I watch the line and watch the public percent, and I watch the line move as it gets closer to gametime. I take everything into account.Change in weather, especiallly wind. Change in personel, change in line. I dont try to get in early. Maybe some people are successful doing that. But I try not to get in early. Sure sometimes I dont get the best price. But thats the price I pay for info.

What if the public feels the fave is the way to go, and then the sharps at the end of the week still feel the fave is a good value. and the line gets larger. The sharps dont always go for the dog.

There would have been a certain amount of bettors on the fence for the superbowl that bet on the Pats....who may have changed the bet if they knew butler was being for all intents benched. Personally if I knew the center for theRaiders in the superbowl was a no-show for the game and no one knew where he was......I would not have bet on the Raiders. For me...over time..the more info is better than having the absolute best line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Subject: NFL parlay bets vs. spread bets

A lot say that parlays are sucker bets because of the higher HA. But that is not always true.

A 3 team parlay pays 6/1 (at most places) and carries a house edge of 12.5%.

A spread bet pays 10/11 and carries a house edge of 4.55%.

So, if you win a 3 team parlay betting $100 you get paid back $700 and you actually won $600.

But if you had parlayed 3 spread bets yourself this is what would have happened:

First bet $100 win $91

2nd bet bet $191 win $173.81

3rd bet $364.81 win $328.33

You would get paid back $693.14 (including pennies for example purposes)

The cost of your spread bet parlay was $100 and you won only $593.14 which is less than the book would have paid you.

So, you are better off with the book's parlay than by doing it yourself if the betting choices of teams is the same. And all of the wiseguys who say parlays are sucker bets are wrong.

Why? Because in doing the parlay yourself the house edge cuts into you 3 times. The book's parlay offering only cuts into you only once.

It's only a small difference but still over time can be significant.

---

Okay, here is the big thing being missed.

Let's say that you only had $100 to your name, and you either wanted to make the parlay bets or self-parlay it, so to speak.

You mentioned the $12.50 expected loss of a single $100 three-teamer, that's fine.

What you are not looking at is the fact that your overall expected loss relative to action is still far less with the self-parlay as opposed to making one parlay bet. Why? Because you could lose one of the bets along the way.

If you bet $100 with a House Edge of 4.55%, your expected loss is going to be $4.55, however, there is a 50% chance this will be the only bet, "That $100," makes.

If you make the second bet, your first bet won, and your second bet is going to be $191. That carries an expected loss of $8.6905, but you're only 50% to ever make that bet, so cut it in half. $4.34525.

If you make the third bet, which you have a 25% probability of doing, then your expected loss will be $16.598855, but there's only a 25% chance you make the bet to begin with, so you're at $4.14971375.

If you add those things together, in terms of expected loss, you get 4.55 + 4.34525 + 4.14971375 = 13.04496375

That's more than $12.50, but your expected action is WAY more than $100.

(100) + (191/2) + (364.81/4) = $286.7025

286.7025 * .0455 = 13.04496375

Voila.

It seems strange, but your average expected bet and expected losses are lower relative to total action because of the bets you might never get to make.

See, on the self-parlay, you don't have to bet again, you can stop. You're not betting $100, you're maybe making three different bets with two of them being over $100.

Hi Mission. You wrote this: "What you are not looking at is the fact that your overall expected loss relative to action is still far less with the self-parlay as opposed to making one parlay bet. Why? Because you could lose one of the bets along the way. "

So, I know you are a Mathlete and I'm not but bear with me while I state my logic.

So, If you bet a $100 3 team self parlay and I bet with the book and we both win all 3 games you collect $693.14 and I collect $700.

So, are you going to tell me you got a better deal there?

How about if we both lose the first game. You lost $100 and I lost $100. We both have zero.

Did you get a better deal there?

How about if we both win the first game and lose the 2nd game. You lost $100 and I lost $100. We both have zero.

Did you get a better deal there?

How about if we both win the first 2 games and lose the 3rd game. You lost $100 and I lost $100. We both have zero.

Did you get a better deal there?

So where did you get a better deal?

How did you benefit in any way by losing one of the bets along the way?

If my parlay loses I didn't pay any vig. I only pay vig if it wins by getting back a less than fair payout.

I realize I might still be missing something but I don't think I can grasp it.

Oh, well. That's okay. Whatever. I don't know what caused the big bang either

I smile at the people who win money at sports, roulette, craps.....and feel the winnings are the casinos' money so if they start with 100, and build it up to 600 at the tables.....if they blow it all..they claim they only lost 100.

If you win a flat bet game and now have 191 dollars.....and you bet it and lose....you have actually lost 191

its your money..not the casinos money.

However if you bet a 100 dollar parlay.....its always the casinos money until all bets win.

LarryS, in my example the advantage indicated if any was very small.

but if Jerry's Nugget still pays 6.5/1 on a 3 team parlay as the Wizard of Odds indicated it did in December of 2014 that would be a large advantage compared to a traditional bet.

you might not want jump on it but lots of others would and they wouldn't be pathetic suckers for doing that.

http://www.jerrysnugget.com/wp-conte...rlay-odds2.jpg

so the above would have to assume lets say 3 times at -110

so then you have to look and see if they end up having a bunch of -115

I mean unless its on a card..they cant be certain that 3 teams will pay 6.5-1....and its not on cards according to the advert.

So for that substantial extra payout, dont you think they would be the only place to place a parlay bet in vegas? My guess is that its a shell game where the payout is listed as 6.5-1 for a parlay where each team is -110......but to find games with -110 might be hard. Justa guess. You generally dont get something for nothing in this world.

I bet william hill which pretty much owns reno locations everywhere.....so I am not shopping around. Look into it and let us know

Half Smoke,

I tried to emphasize the, "Only $100 to your name thing," to make my point.

The angle, and the greater House Edge, derives from the fact that you are making a longer shot bet at a higher House Edge. Vig, in the case of sports, to be proper.

Anyway, it's just a fundamental fact that longer-shot bets have a greater House Edge and, absent some kind of angle, are just a worse bet overall. Blackjack, Baccarat (Banker/Player), Craps (Pass/Don't, Come/Don't Come) all bets with low house edges because you are getting paid on an Even Money basis. When you start getting into side bets, tie bets and center action; the house edge is going to increase pretty dramatically relative to bet amount because you have the opportunity to win a much greater amount in relation to your original bet.

Think of your parlay card as a side bet. It's a bet that you are going to make with a lower hit rate, greater pay and greater house edge.

The casino wants you to make these sort of bets for the precise reason that you think it's a good idea, "Look at what my ONE $100 bet can win me!"

The, "Vig," is always paid even if it is not a realized cost. The, "Vig," is paid as soon as you make the bet. The casino's mathematical advantage on your bet is the vig, which has nothing to do with whether the bet wins or loses. I can't say that the House Edge on Craps ceased to exist if I win a Pass Line bet. It was always there. The only difference is that the casino happened not to realize its advantage on that particular bet. Just like I didn't realize my expectation if I lose the bet. It's a long run thing.

But, with enough bets, the house will always realize its advantage.

Actually, Mission, regarding sports wagering, that "with enough bets, the house will always realize its advantage" is pretty much completely wrong. Games of opinion are not beholden to the rules of probability. Technically, if the lines (sports) are simply designed to balance the wagering, or the wagering is pari-mutuel (horses), anyone could win regardless of vig size as long as the demographic doing the wagering was (pardon the political incorrectness) retarded.

In sports, all you have to do is outperform whoever or whatever is setting the line for a particular sport. That can be done. Where people get in trouble, usually, is when they decide they have the ability to do that across a wide range of different sports. That's a pretty silly default perspective. It's like expecting an obstetrician to be adept at brain surgery and dental work.

I'm going to throw a dig your way while I'm at it, although you seem to be a decent enough bloke given your posting. You've presumably been hanging with Shackleford for ages. I find it a bit weird that someone that immersed in gambling environs would have a mental slip like "with enough bets, the house will always realize its advantage" regarding sports betting. I mean that is simply not correct from any mathematical standpoint because the premise is not about math. If the Wiz truly says stuff like that, well, that's a big fat alarm bell regarding Shackleford's sports expertise.

I grant your counterpoint, but was speaking in the context of the OP. I don’t think anyone super-sharp is going to ask the general question that way.

Otherwise, the answer would always be, “The best bet is one where you think the line(s) is/are wrong and where that incorrectness offers the greatest perceived advantage.” Therefore, sometimes single game ATS, sometimes ML, sometimes parlay...whatever.

The OP said, “The house edges are...,” so I was answering in the context of those assumptions.

In sports, all you have to do is outperform whoever or whatever is setting the line for a particular sport. That can be done. Where people get in trouble, usually, is when they decide they have the ability to do that across a wide range of different sports. That's a pretty silly default perspective. It's like expecting an obstetrician to be adept at brain surgery and dental work.


Ok i will bite. If 3 different people can each outperform NFL, NHA and NBA......each person proficient in one.......why couldnt one person learn to be proficient in all 3? I mean if you said that only football was "outperformable" then ok....I can see your point.
But if outperforming the man who sets the line is doable in different sports....why couldnt one person master 2 or 3.

I am not claiming that person is me....just hypothetically I ask.

there are multi-disciplined medical people.....and there are multidiciplined people across different professions, like pharmacists in law enforcement, and accountants who are lawyers....using your analogy.

i dont see the impossibility theoretically like you do

I would say simply time. There isn't enough time in a day to properly follow overlapping sports. Maybe baseball and 1 winter sport could be done. But not multiple winter sports.

I don't think there is any doubt that sports can be beaten.

The problem is finding enough bets to make significant money or you have to bet very big.

The sports bettor's edge is only theoretical for any one bet except in very unusual circumstances such as arbitrage. In the long run his edge might be undeniable.

A blackjack advantage player can pretty easily get down 500 bets in a day. The edge is very small but still.

Most sports bettors are lucky to fine one or two bets in a day where they perceive a significant edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

in the context of the OP. I don’t think anyone super-sharp is going to ask the general question that way.

---

super-sharp in math will get you an edge of one half of one percent in sports betting sometimes

super-sharp in handicapping will get you an edge of 10% sometimes


Blackjack legend and writer Stanford Wong is super-sharp in math

He wrote a book about horse racing called "Betting Cheap Claimers" which primarily emphasized math angles to get an edge

this really bad book is laughable to serious horse players