16 team parley for 700+K

[kewlJ]

I am going to put this in the main forum for now. Druff can feel free to move it to sports betting.

So as reported on yahoo today, a bettor is holding a $25 16 team parlay ticket in which he has won the first 15 teams. His remaining team is Detroit Lions to win over Green Bay tonight. Detroit is currently at +450, so that is a large portion of this total.

That means if he was interested in hedging, with Green Bay -580 (as of a couple minutes ago). If he were to bet $580,000 he could guarantee a win of 100k. An obstacle could be that many people don't just have $600k laying around to get to in a moments notice (or day's notice) like this would require.

So, I am not going to do a poll but hope people will respond just for fun.

Would you hedge?

Could you get that kind of money on short notice and be willing to put it down on the wager?

Me personally, I don't have 600k laying around. I would scrap up what I could with my BR and savings, and my brother's bankroll, and maybe hedge for close to half, guaranteeing maybe a 60k win, and still hope Green Bay is as awful as they were last week and I got lucky for a net win of 400k.

[jbjb]

He's fucked.

[MaxPen]

Do people that buy lotto tickets hedge?....RIP

[kewlJ]

Do people that buy lotto tickets hedge?....RIP

Not the same thing. There is no break in the drawing or opportunity to hedge.

[redietz]

Do people that buy lotto tickets hedge?....RIP

Not the same thing. There is no break in the drawing or opportunity to hedge.

If I could access the money, I would indeed hedge to balance it out.

I have two thoughts on taking the Lions. On one hand, since early season who's good or bad can be an illusion, he took a chance that a team that closed like gangbusters in Week One would continue rolling in Week Two. That seemed a reasonable thing to do.

However, if he were going to do this, he should never have money-lined the dog like that as a standalone final leg. It makes hedging unmanageable. So Lions were not a bad idea, in my view, but plugging them into the final position was a mistake because it badly mucks up hedging. Had he simply taken Lions plus points, the hedging is much more manageable. The reward is much less, but you have a shot to win both your money-line hedge and the final leg, so not a bad position.

Side note but relevant: A long time ago, I took a team at 100-1 to get to the Super Bowl. It was San Diego. Unfortunately, they made it to the SB. LOL. And their opponent was the 49ers, and they were 16 point underdogs and SF was -1100 on the money-line. What a pain in the ass to get my money back and make a few bucks. Fortunately, an illegal bookmaker I knew but had never actually met allowed me to bet SF on the moneyline without fronting any cash. He was a really big bookmaker; supposedly he took wagers from some famous people involved in the NFL. So I guess there are advantages to knowing the occasional illegal bookmaker.

[MaxPen]

Do people that buy lotto tickets hedge?....RIP

Not the same thing. There is no break in the drawing or opportunity to hedge.

I was more or less asking because isn't the point of a 16 team parlay to gamble like the lotto?

[MaxPen]

Do people that buy lotto tickets hedge?....RIP

Not the same thing. There is no break in the drawing or opportunity to hedge.

If I could access the money, I would indeed hedge to balance it out.

I have two thoughts on taking the Lions. On one hand, since early season who's good or bad can be an illusion, he took a chance that a team that closed like gangbusters in Week One would continue rolling in Week Two. That seemed a reasonable thing to do.

However, if he were going to do this, he should never have money-lined the dog like that as a standalone final leg. It makes hedging unmanageable. So Lions were not a bad idea, in my view, but plugging them into the final position was a mistake because it badly mucks up hedging. Had he simply taken Lions plus points, the hedging is much more manageable. The reward is much less, but you have a shot to win both your money-line hedge and the final leg, so not a bad position.

Side note but relevant: A long time ago, I took a team at 100-1 to get to the Super Bowl. It was San Diego. Unfortunately, they made it to the SB. LOL. And their opponent was the 49ers, and they were 16 point underdogs and SF was -1100 on the money-line. What a pain in the ass to get my money back and make a few bucks. Fortunately, an illegal bookmaker I knew but had never actually met allowed me to bet SF on the moneyline without fronting any cash. He was a really big bookmaker; supposedly he took wagers from some famous people involved in the NFL. So I guess there are advantages to knowing the occasional illegal bookmaker.

What about those progressives where you pick 16 teams. Does it make sense to take the dog for the last game so there will be less people to chop with potentially?

[redietz]

Not the same thing. There is no break in the drawing or opportunity to hedge.

If I could access the money, I would indeed hedge to balance it out.

I have two thoughts on taking the Lions. On one hand, since early season who's good or bad can be an illusion, he took a chance that a team that closed like gangbusters in Week One would continue rolling in Week Two. That seemed a reasonable thing to do.

However, if he were going to do this, he should never have money-lined the dog like that as a standalone final leg. It makes hedging unmanageable. So Lions were not a bad idea, in my view, but plugging them into the final position was a mistake because it badly mucks up hedging. Had he simply taken Lions plus points, the hedging is much more manageable. The reward is much less, but you have a shot to win both your money-line hedge and the final leg, so not a bad position.

Side note but relevant: A long time ago, I took a team at 100-1 to get to the Super Bowl. It was San Diego. Unfortunately, they made it to the SB. LOL. And their opponent was the 49ers, and they were 16 point underdogs and SF was -1100 on the money-line. What a pain in the ass to get my money back and make a few bucks. Fortunately, an illegal bookmaker I knew but had never actually met allowed me to bet SF on the moneyline without fronting any cash. He was a really big bookmaker; supposedly he took wagers from some famous people involved in the NFL. So I guess there are advantages to knowing the occasional illegal bookmaker.

What about those progressives where you pick 16 teams. Does it make sense to take the dog for the last game so there will be less people to chop with potentially?

I wasn't aware there was a split-the-prize involved. In the no spread contests, that comes into play.

[MaxPen]

If I could access the money, I would indeed hedge to balance it out.

I have two thoughts on taking the Lions. On one hand, since early season who's good or bad can be an illusion, he took a chance that a team that closed like gangbusters in Week One would continue rolling in Week Two. That seemed a reasonable thing to do.

However, if he were going to do this, he should never have money-lined the dog like that as a standalone final leg. It makes hedging unmanageable. So Lions were not a bad idea, in my view, but plugging them into the final position was a mistake because it badly mucks up hedging. Had he simply taken Lions plus points, the hedging is much more manageable. The reward is much less, but you have a shot to win both your money-line hedge and the final leg, so not a bad position.

Side note but relevant: A long time ago, I took a team at 100-1 to get to the Super Bowl. It was San Diego. Unfortunately, they made it to the SB. LOL. And their opponent was the 49ers, and they were 16 point underdogs and SF was -1100 on the money-line. What a pain in the ass to get my money back and make a few bucks. Fortunately, an illegal bookmaker I knew but had never actually met allowed me to bet SF on the moneyline without fronting any cash. He was a really big bookmaker; supposedly he took wagers from some famous people involved in the NFL. So I guess there are advantages to knowing the occasional illegal bookmaker.

What about those progressives where you pick 16 teams. Does it make sense to take the dog for the last game so there will be less people to chop with potentially?

I wasn't aware there was a split-the-prize involved. In the no spread contests, that comes into play.

The progressive I was asking about are like 15 or 16 team 1/2 point picks or something like that. If no one gets all then the money rolls into the next week.

I was wondering if it is correct to take the dog in the last event on those in case you make it to the end?

I know next to nothing about sports betting. The reason I was asking is this thread had me thinking about someone I know betting a bunch of combinations and there being nothing to hedge at the end when he got there. Because there was so many others that got there too because lot of favorites win that week

I had asked him why wouldn't you always take the dog for the last leg? It seems like that would be the correct thing to do.

[redietz]

What about those progressives where you pick 16 teams. Does it make sense to take the dog for the last game so there will be less people to chop with potentially?

I wasn't aware there was a split-the-prize involved. In the no spread contests, that comes into play.

The progressive I was asking about are like 15 or 16 team 1/2 point picks or something like that. If no one gets all then the money rolls into the next week.

I was wondering if it is correct to take the dog in the last event on those in case you make it to the end?

I know next to nothing about sports betting. The reason I was asking is this thread had me thinking about someone I know betting a bunch of combinations and there being nothing to hedge at the end when he got there. Because there was so many others that got there too because lot of favorites win that week

I had asked him why wouldn't you always take the dog for the last leg? It seems like that would be the correct thing to do.

Except in certain very specific situations, I don't play parlays. I could see getting on board with a progressive that nobody has hit for weeks. I have never played one, so I really have no idea what's appropriate. If you get to the end of the season and it's a "must win" like a horse racing pool, then I could see doing it.

I try to not do things that are remotely possible, even if free, but practicably a waste of time.

[mcap]

Never bet parlays!

[jbjb]

Never bet parlays!

I'd like to know what drugs this guy was on to bet on the Lions winning ANYTHING let alone winning in GB.

[monet]

If I could access the money, I would indeed hedge to balance it out.

Of course you would hedge because you are a Fraud and a Scandicapper.
Plus you are too busy trying to find the next best Teaser to bet lol lol lol.
Remember when you would pull up to the grocery store and have them throw in your boxes of food and you would wipe every box and can down with bleach wipes lol lol lol.
FUCK OFF!

[jbjb]

He's fucked.

Confirmed.

[monet]

Just so you all realize, the parlay bet was a Free 25 Dollar Bet.
All of his picks were with the Money Line.
The Bettor took the cash out option before the MNF game went off.
He collected 133k before taxes.
Ordinarily, BetMGM does not provide a cash-out option for free bets. This time, though, the company made an exception “due to the amazing picks and unlikely odds.”
Do Not Bet Parlays!!

[kewlJ]

Just so you all realize, the parlay bet was a Free 25 Dollar Bet.
All of his picks were with the Money Line.
The Bettor took the cash out option before the MNF game went off.
He collected 133k before taxes.
Ordinarily, BetMGM does not provide a cash-out option for free bets. This time, though, the company made an exception “due to the amazing picks and unlikely odds.”
Do Not Bet Parlays!!

Nice! Smart move by the player. Good of MGM to allow it.

[monet]

Nice! Smart move by the player. Good of MGM to allow it.

lol... You are wrong on both accounts.
First off, I thought you were all about EV and obviously this guy gave up HUGE EV.
Secondly... MGM isn't in the charity business, they let him buy out of the bet because they bought up all his EV.
Yes, the player cashed out in this instance but the player got paid for making the wrong mathematical play.
Doesn't make the player "Smart."

[kewlJ]

Nice! Smart move by the player. Good of MGM to allow it.

lol... You are wrong on both accounts.
First off, I thought you were all about EV and obviously this guy gave up HUGE EV.
Secondly... MGM isn't in the charity business, they let him buy out of the bet because they bought up all his EV.
Yes, the player cashed out in this instance but the player got paid for making the wrong mathematical play.
Doesn't make the player "Smart."

Wrong!. It was a smart move because we now know the outcome. Nothing else matters....smart move.

Look we don't know anything about this person. Perhaps it was some goofy dame, or some gay dude that knows zip about sports (I have heard that about some gay dudes) and they made their picks for their free roll, by uniform color or God knows what. So a chance to collect 133k on a free bet sounds pretty good.

Interestingly, 3 of the bigger upset picks were the final 3 picks of the week, a late afternoon game picking against Seattle, the Sunday night game Ravens over KC, and the Monday night game Detroit over GB . After hitting the first 2 upsets, getting 133k seems like a good idea.

Someone mentioned that the ideal way to do it would have been to pick favorites on the Monday Night game and maybe even the Sunday night game. That way, you could have set up some decent hedging opportunities, even a partial type hedge. But I suspect our "free roller" didn't even think about something like that. They just picked however they picked and got lucky.

[Ozzy]

Nice! Smart move by the player. Good of MGM to allow it.

lol... You are wrong on both accounts.
First off, I thought you were all about EV and obviously this guy gave up HUGE EV.
Secondly... MGM isn't in the charity business, they let him buy out of the bet because they bought up all his EV.
Yes, the player cashed out in this instance but the player got paid for making the wrong mathematical play.
Doesn't make the player "Smart."

I'm a strong proponent of EV at all costs, but in this instance I would have done the same thing. This is an extremely rare situation where I take the 133k and run. I believe most would do the same. Even with a sizeable bankroll, letting 133k ride on the severely underdog Lions is not a chance I can stomach.

[kewlJ]

I'm a strong proponent of EV at all costs,

Here is the thing. At no time was there any reason to believe that these picks were advantageous. So hitting a string of negative EV picks made the wager +EV, similar to if you bet black on roulette 7 times won and let it keep rolling over. So had you bet black and won 7 times rolling the bet over, should you bet all that money on the 8th time? Of course not. Nothing about it is +EV. At that point you are just a gambler, playing a streak. Might as well go for 18 y.o's in a row.