Hey guys, i don't post too often but enjoy reading the great posts on the site. My buddy has been using this system for a while now and i just wanted to see what you guys thought on it. He seems to be making money with it. Not sure if this has been discussed before i am sure it has but here it is anyway.
The basic premise it to bet $1000 on a two team parlay. The first leg of the parlay is always on a very good home favorite min -170. The second leg is to pick another home team that is a favorite but not as large say -130 that the game starts after the first leg is over. Obviously he does this to hedge his bet.
Now all or his parlays pay min 1.7 to one. Thus in the later game when he hedges it is always on the dog this getting him juice back on the bet. He bets $1000 on the late game at say +135.
Anyway the whole thing comes down to having to pick a winner in the first leg. Once you win that game (who was a big fav) you win money. In this case either up $700 or up $350.
What he likes about it is that you really are only betting on the fact that a big favorite needs to win but you are not risking the huge juice to do so. Yes he does not win what he bet but the long term return on his investment seems to be huge. His words " if you take the juice out of play on a big home favorite you will make money in the long run"
Please flame away
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Hey guys, i don't post too often but enjoy reading the great posts on the site. My buddy has been using this system for a while now and i just wanted to see what you guys thought on it. He seems to be making money with it. Not sure if this has been discussed before i am sure it has but here it is anyway.
The basic premise it to bet $1000 on a two team parlay. The first leg of the parlay is always on a very good home favorite min -170. The second leg is to pick another home team that is a favorite but not as large say -130 that the game starts after the first leg is over. Obviously he does this to hedge his bet.
Now all or his parlays pay min 1.7 to one. Thus in the later game when he hedges it is always on the dog this getting him juice back on the bet. He bets $1000 on the late game at say +135.
Anyway the whole thing comes down to having to pick a winner in the first leg. Once you win that game (who was a big fav) you win money. In this case either up $700 or up $350.
What he likes about it is that you really are only betting on the fact that a big favorite needs to win but you are not risking the huge juice to do so. Yes he does not win what he bet but the long term return on his investment seems to be huge. His words " if you take the juice out of play on a big home favorite you will make money in the long run"
This is about as bad as it gets. This is the equivalent of betting the -170 favorite straight, then taking those winnings and betting half on either side of the -130 game. Just brutal.
0
This is about as bad as it gets. This is the equivalent of betting the -170 favorite straight, then taking those winnings and betting half on either side of the -130 game. Just brutal.
What he likes about it is that you really are only betting on the fact that a big favorite needs to win but you are not risking the huge juice to do so.
If the first game loses, you sure as he$$ are risking the juice.
Your friend
0
What he likes about it is that you really are only betting on the fact that a big favorite needs to win but you are not risking the huge juice to do so.
If the first game loses, you sure as he$$ are risking the juice.
This is about as bad as it gets. This is the equivalent of betting the -170 favorite straight, then taking those winnings and betting half on either side of the -130 game. Just brutal.
0
Quote Originally Posted by totalguy:
This is about as bad as it gets. This is the equivalent of betting the -170 favorite straight, then taking those winnings and betting half on either side of the -130 game. Just brutal.
Here's the probability of why you're friend doesn't exist...
The books are savy at setting the ML's so that the average win % matches the ML's break even point (This is a fact. I have tracked these for years)..
Using your example: -1.70 breaks even at 63% , and -1.30 breaks even at 57%. The probabibility of both winning together is .57 x .63 = .36. So 36% of the parlays should win. But let's be generous and call it 40%.
Let's assume you played 10 parlays, On 6.3 plays (63%), the first game would win, so you would then bet another unit on the hedge dog. Out of the 6.3 games, only 4 (40%) would win both legs of the parlay.
So if you bet 10 parlays, 4 would win +1.70 = +6.80. But you also hedged another unit on the dog,: +6.80 - 4.00 = +2.80 net.
Now on the other 2.3 parlays that you lost, you won the hedge bet of +1.20 x 2.3 = +2.76. But you also lost the original parlay bets of 2.3 units...+2.76 - 2.30 = 0.46 net.
So far you netted +2.80 and +0.46 = +3.26 net units.
However, you still have 3.7 games remaining that were bet on as parlays that did not win the first leg, so they lost 1 unit each.
+3.26 -3.70 = -0.44 units..
or as Vegas likes to say, you.ve been punked!
0
Here's the probability of why you're friend doesn't exist...
The books are savy at setting the ML's so that the average win % matches the ML's break even point (This is a fact. I have tracked these for years)..
Using your example: -1.70 breaks even at 63% , and -1.30 breaks even at 57%. The probabibility of both winning together is .57 x .63 = .36. So 36% of the parlays should win. But let's be generous and call it 40%.
Let's assume you played 10 parlays, On 6.3 plays (63%), the first game would win, so you would then bet another unit on the hedge dog. Out of the 6.3 games, only 4 (40%) would win both legs of the parlay.
So if you bet 10 parlays, 4 would win +1.70 = +6.80. But you also hedged another unit on the dog,: +6.80 - 4.00 = +2.80 net.
Now on the other 2.3 parlays that you lost, you won the hedge bet of +1.20 x 2.3 = +2.76. But you also lost the original parlay bets of 2.3 units...+2.76 - 2.30 = 0.46 net.
So far you netted +2.80 and +0.46 = +3.26 net units.
However, you still have 3.7 games remaining that were bet on as parlays that did not win the first leg, so they lost 1 unit each.
thanks guys. It never really made much sense but i really did not know the math to be able to explain it to him. Not that i am sure he will care as he believes in it. But you hear all kinds of crazy ideas so i just wanted to see what the experts or at least guys who know the math thought on it.
0
thanks guys. It never really made much sense but i really did not know the math to be able to explain it to him. Not that i am sure he will care as he believes in it. But you hear all kinds of crazy ideas so i just wanted to see what the experts or at least guys who know the math thought on it.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.