News Bisping’s $200 parlay to pay $50K

[Amerikuracana]

Parlays where you have to get a specific result in a specific round are just a way to make life disappointing.

 

[muaythaidon1]

True. But he’s not promoting any sportsbook here tho

I'm pretty damn sure his show is sponsored by draft kings.

 

[Guffman]

I like Michael's parlay.

Parlays are fun as long as you don't get carried away with them. But I guess that would go for all types of betting.

 

[xhaydenx]

Hard to put solid numbers on these kinds of things, but I feel pretty confident in saying almost nobody who is up all time gambling or who consistently gambles wins over time on parlays. Less than 1%. Consistent, profitable bettors don’t achieve those things with parlays.

I'm not going to actually disagree with you, because I know where you're coming from, but I guess I'm part of that 1%.

I gamble every UFC card. I'm well and truly in the profits. I dropped 3k on a single parlay and nothing else every card for a year. I made heaps doing that.

Parlay's don't work when the bettor has no fucking clue what they're doing, which is the vast majority of the time. If you do know what you're doing though, you can make a livable income with far less in stakes than what you would have to put on singles.

 

[Final Say]

I did nothing but parlays for a whole year. For every UFC event I slapped 3k on a parlay of 3-4 legs...I was consistently winning 4 cards in a row before taking a loss.

if I allowed myself to believe this is true, Id say congrats on being one of the best professional gamblers on earth and not needing a regular job.

way, way, way less risk than with singles.

Your risk is much higher when your odds of winning are much lower. Which they are on parlays. Much, much, much lower.

Your risk is far lower on single bets.

But again if I allow myself to believe you’re winning 3k dollar parlays at a 66-75% clip, then you’re pretty amazing man!

 

[Diamond Dallas Poirier]

As far as parlays go, that’s pretty fuckin solid with great odds

parlays are for R Tards though

That’s why these sports books pay podcasters and fighters to promote them and talk about the multiplied odds. They’re a loser’s bet.

They’re lottery tickets. Might hit a couple over time, will never be consistent winners though

Lol this was really the gist of what I’m saying. But yeah for a casual bettor who needs some action, sure, blow the money. But I wouldn’t tell anybody to buy scratch offs as financial advice either lol

Hard to put solid numbers on these kinds of things, but I feel pretty confident in saying almost nobody who is up all time gambling or who consistently gambles wins over time on parlays. Less than 1%. Consistent, profitable bettors don’t achieve those things with parlays.

books make more because parlays payout at a much smaller rate and the higher odds entice inexperienced bettors

and no you read me wrong. I said it’s pretty incredible odds and not bad picks as far as a parlay goes, but in general parlays are trash bets and no one wins over time on them

Parlays aren't inherently bad. They don't increase or decrease EV. They're certainly not for tards. They increase variance, that's all. You win less often, but when you win, you win more. You trade increased variance for increased fun.

That fun attracts casual bettors who don't pay attention to detail to the numbers. So bad bettors tend to like parlays becuase of the fun factor. But you're making an error in your thinking if you think that equates to parlays being bad bets.

Comparing them to lottery tickets or roulette, is false, because with them, the odds and stacked against the bettor.

 

[Guffman]

The problem with working parlays for real profit is you have to be ready for some long and disappointing dry streaks. Most people have neither the temperament or bank account for such things. My parlays are mostly low money for big payoffs. They have entertainment value even if I lose, which is most of the time.

 

[Final Say]

Parlays aren't inherently bad. They don't increase or decrease EV. They're certainly not for tards. They increase variance, that's all. You win less often, but when you win, you win more. You trade increased variance for increased fun.

That fun attracts casual bettors who don't pay attention to detail to the numbers. So bad bettors tend to like parlays becuase of the fun factor. But you're making an error in your thinking if you think that equates to parlays being bad bets.

Comparing them to lottery tickets or roulette, is false, because with them, the odds and stacked against the bettor.

The odds are heavily stacked against you on a parlay as well because they pay out at a far lower rate than necessary to recoup losses.

Professional gamblers can utilize the occasional parlay if the right opportunity exists, but it’s not a winning strategy. For context, an average professional needs to be right less than 60% of the time on straight bets.

think that last sentence over

 

[xhaydenx]

if I allowed myself to believe this is true, Id say congrats on being one of the best professional gamblers on earth and not needing a regular job.


Your risk is much higher when your odds of winning are much lower. Which they are on parlays. Much, much, much lower.

Your risk is far lower on single bets.

But again if I allow myself to believe you’re winning 3k dollar parlays at a 66-75% clip, then you’re pretty amazing man!

It depends how you look at the risk, though, man.

If I put a parlay of 3 WMMA fights to reach the 2nd round, all paying around 1.20, I'm generally as confident in that as I would be in 2 singles of 1.4 or so.

And I would need to risk a lot more on the 2 singles to make the same money on the multi. I'd need 3k on each to get $1500 from each single at 1.50, but my parlay would profit $3000 from half as much risk.

Remember as well, the odds that the bookies set don't actually reflect anything about what they should actually be. Tecia Torres was 3.40 in a recent fight, but I gave her 1.30, personally. Same for Chookagian in one of her recent fights.

If you know what you're doing, the risk really isn't all that much relative to what the return is over time (gave you an example above. WMMA round bets and just women in generally is easy money).

My win percentage for that year of multi's 76%. I'm starting them up again small with the intention of building back up to 3kers alongside my singles this year. So far I'm at 80% for the year, but that doesn't mean a whole lot considering there hasn't been all that many cards yet.

 

[Willy Knuckles]

books make more because parlays payout at a much smaller rate and the higher odds entice inexperienced bettors

and no you read me wrong. I said it’s pretty incredible odds and not bad picks as far as a parlay goes, but in general parlays are trash bets and no one wins over time on them

I've read that but I do 2-3 fight parlays and do pretty well at it. I only see it if people do large parlays often. Also I think Parlays like that entice people wanting a large payout, not people attempting to build a roll. Never got why Parlays got such a bad wrap

 

[Final Say]

It depends how you look at the risk, though, man.

If I put a parlay of 3 WMMA fights to reach the 2nd round, all paying around 1.20, I'm generally as confident in that as I would be in 2 singles of 1.4 or so.

And I would need to risk a lot more on the 2 singles to make the same money on the multi. I'd need 3k on each to get $1500 from each single at 1.50, but my parlay would profit $3000 from half as much risk.

Remember as well, the odds that the bookies set don't actually reflect anything about what they should actually be. Tecia Torres was 3.40 in a recent fight, but I gave her 1.30, personally. Same for Chookagian in one of her recent fights.

If you know what you're doing, the risk really isn't all that much relative to what the return is over time (gave you an example above. WMMA round bets and just women in generally is easy money).

My win percentage for that year of multi's 76%. I'm starting them up again small with the intention of building back up to 3kers alongside my singles this year. So far I'm at 80% for the year, but that doesn't mean a whole lot considering there hasn't been all that many cards yet.

Well if you’re taking those bets obviously that changes things. You’re parlaying 3 WMMA fights to go two rounds is worth as much or maybe even less than some straight bets, which I’d still be more confident about in a lot of cases.

taking 3 -700 favorites in a parlay vastly changes what the nature of the parlay is and I’d still say that’s not a winning strategy over time. But if it works for you itnworks

 

[Final Say]

I've read that but I do 2-3 fight parlays and do pretty well at it. I only see it if people do large parlays often. Also I think Parlays like that entice people wanting a large payout, not people attempting to build a roll. Never got why Parlays got such a bad wrap

They get a bad wrap from people who want to be a strict and consistently profitable bettor over time, not people looking to add entertainment value or have some fun.

The pros are the ones who say parlays aren’t good bets. They need to achieve a winning %.

 

[xhaydenx]

Well if you’re taking those bets obviously that changes things. You’re parlaying 3 WMMA fights to go two rounds is worth as much or maybe even less than some straight bets, which I’d still be more confident about in a lot of cases.

taking 3 -700 favorites in a parlay vastly changes what the nature of the parlay is and I’d still say that’s not a winning strategy over time. But if it works for you itnworks

Yeh, that's the thing with parlays: most casual bettors play them like the books want you to play them.

When I place singles, books always refer every bet to a trader because they know I win on them all the time, and they need to decide if they want to take the full risk with me.

But if I go and place two of my same singles into the one multi? Lol, they don't even think about it. They just accept it immediately. In their mind, they're getting that money back over time, even if that isn't necessarily true with me, they know it works for the vast majority of casual bettors who go for parlays.

 

[OldFashion]

Hey at least you're only going to lose 6 dollars

hey the only low chance pick out of those 3 is the Megan KO/TKO but this is mma and it can definitely happen. The other 2 picks are very possible scenarios. Good bet

 

[The Witcher]

Pray for me

 

[Diamond Dallas Poirier]

The odds are heavily stacked against you on a parlay as well because they pay out at a far lower rate than necessary to recoup losses.

Professional gamblers can utilize the occasional parlay if the right opportunity exists, but it’s not a winning strategy. For context, an average professional needs to be right less than 60% of the time on straight bets.

think that last sentence over

The odds aren't stacked against the bettor in the same way I'm saying they are for the lottery and roulette. With sports betting, you can legitimately have knowledge on the outcome to gain an edge over other bettors, just by knowing lots about the sport. You can't do that in roulette or lottery (excluding cheating possibilities). That's the point of that comparison.

Like I said, single bets and parlays are the same in terms of EV. Take this example. You're offered +100 odds on winning a coinflip. You'd be offered +300 odds on winning two consecutive coinflips. You'd double your money on the first bet 50% of the time, breaking even over time. You'd quadruple your money on the second bet 25% of the time, breaking even over time. With the first bet, winnings are less but more consistent. With the second bet, winnings are more but less consistent. This is called variance.

That last sentence of yours is total nonsense. For the pro bettor to break even over the long term, the amount they need to be right would obviously depend on what odds they're getting for their bets. If they're getting on average +200 then they need to be right 33% of the time; if they're getting on average +100 then they need to be right 50% the time; if they're getting on average -200 then they need to be right 67% of the time; if they're getting on average -300 they need to be right 75% of the time, etc etc.

 

[Diamond Dallas Poirier]

They get a bad wrap from people who want to be a strict and consistently profitable bettor over time, not people looking to add entertainment value or have some fun.

The pros are the ones who say parlays aren’t good bets. They need to achieve a winning %.

Pros don't say that. They say what I'm saying.

 

[TerrorTimmy]

As far as parlays go, that’s pretty fuckin solid with great odds

parlays are for R Tards though

That’s why these sports books pay podcasters and fighters to promote them and talk about the multiplied odds. They’re a loser’s bet.

True, but if you put down $5 or whatever it can make the night a bit more fun, especially if your parlay includes fights you otherwise don't care about.

Don't drop your entire paycheck on a parlay, though. That's dumb as fuck, no matter how much you could win if it hits

 

[Guffman]

View attachment 838401

Pray for me

No prayers needed. I think you have a winner here.

 

[Baba Ghanoush]

Should’ve invested that money in GME stonks.