|
|
#1
04-01-2007, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
which parlay is better in the long run?
I was lookin at the parlays at IASBET and it seems like they offer something most sites don’t have…
Not sure if you’ve heard of it before, but they have something called “ exotic ” parlays. The standard parlay that I do is the 3-team parlay that pays at roughly 6:1. However, if you enter 3 plays into IAS, you have the choice of doing the standard 3-team parlay where all 3 must win for 6:1, or there’s something called a 2 Play Parlay/Double, Patent, and Trixie. In the 2PP/Double, you have to put 3 bets and 2 selections must win for minimum return. Makes sense since a 2-team parlay with 3 teams only has 3 unique outcomes, hence 3 bets. Now with the Patent, you have to make 7 bets and 1 selection must win for minimum return. Again, the 7 bets consists of the 7 unique outcomes – three single bets, three 2-team parlays and one 3-team parlay. In the last bet, the Trixie, you must put 4 bets and 2 selections must win for minimum return, three 2-team parlays and one 3-team parlay. There are more exotic bets as you make more selections but for now I just want to focus on a 3-teamer. The variance is obviously lower if we do an exotic bet compared to a straight parlay since we’d win smaller bets more often. The question is, is it better in the long run? For every straight 3-team parlay that we miss, we would most likely win the money back if it were an exotic bet. All we’d need is one team to win, or two teams to win to earn some money back, whereas a straight parlay requires ALL teams to win. Anyone with some insight would be appreciated. I know parlays are generally frowned upon and unprofitable, but I like to have some fun, and sometimes making "smart" parlays is good. I’ve missed a few 4 to 9-teamers in the past few weeks (even missed a 14-teamer by 2) and I could have definitely used one of these exotic bets :P. Thanks. 
|
|
#2
04-01-2007, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: which parlay is better in the long run?
I just want to point out that going 12 for 14 is much, much easier than going 14 for 14. There are 91 ways to hit 12 of 14, and 1 way to hit them all. So don't be fooled and think you were super-close.
|
|
#3
04-01-2007, 02:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: which parlay is better in the long run?
[ QUOTE ]
I just want to point out that going 12 for 14 is much, much easier than going 14 for 14. There are 91 ways to hit 12 of 14, and 1 way to hit them all. So don't be fooled and think you were super-close. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. Is the math in my favour in the long run?
|
|
#4
04-06-2007, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: which parlay is better in the long run?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I just want to point out that going 12 for 14 is much, much easier than going 14 for 14. There are 91 ways to hit 12 of 14, and 1 way to hit them all. So don't be fooled and think you were super-close. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. Is the math in my favour in the long run? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't take the time to analyze, but I would be surprised if these bets weren't all extremely bad.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
