Correlated 2-bet parlay question.

[RocketManJames]

I am only a casual sports bettor, and I only play tiny amounts that don't mean much to me... so what I'm about to say is probably pretty lame.

I have a simple question about 2-bet parlays. Odds offered are 13:5 if you win a 2-bet parlay. My question is: does it ever arise that 2 bets could ever be correlated such that it's not so bad a bet?

Here is a very made-up example:

Say you have two football teams, A vs B. Team A is super-duper defense and Team B is super-duper offense. If A wins then it is highly likely that the score is low, because it can't score but can defend well. If B wins, it is most likely a high scoring game.

So, if you bet on B to win and high scoring or A to win and low scoring, you have a better chance. Does this make any sense? And does it ever happen that the correlation is so strong that the house edge disappears?

-RMJ

[craig r]

the most common correlated situation is underdog-under and favorite-over. but, it is not worth it on every game. you will still have to pick your spots.

your example below is also very good as well.

[Ed Miller]

You are correct, sir!

[lowroller]

The landscape is littered with sports bettors who thought the favorite/over or dog/under gave them a big edge...even if you attempt to choose your spots.

If you and I can see the scenario you described, you can bet the linesmakers can too (or even more significant, if they think you will put too much emphasis on any correlation). This, like all other significant information, is factored into the line...and on the off-chance that it is NOT already factored in, the syndicates and sharps will hammer the game until it is factored in!

[Ed Miller]

This, like all other significant information, is factored into the line...and on the off-chance that it is NOT already factored in, the syndicates and sharps will hammer the game until it is factored in!

If the correlation is strong enough, there's no place you can move the line to "factor it in."

For instance, assume a book let you parlay props (of course none do for obvious reasons). I want to parlay the following two bets:

Team A scores first AND Team A wins
Team B scores first AND Team B wins

What do you put the lines at for each individual bet to "factor in" this correlation?

[RocketManJames]

You know what, Ed? You're good... real good. My intuition told me that there were definitely instances where very strong correlations would prevent odds-adjustment to account for them. Unfortunately, I gave up trying to come up with an example. I tried to create a scenario where several bets were circularly correlated and where placing multiple bets would make it impossible for the oddsmakers to fix the situation.

Thanks for your example.

-RMJ (not qutting his pokering to pursue sports betting)

[lowroller]

Ed,

The example you gave, although obviously high in correlation, no book in the world would let you get down on. Although we could come up with numerous correlated parlays that look good on paper, try cashing those at the window....Like:

Team A wins 1Q to Team A Wins 1H*
Team A wins 1Q to Team A Wins Game*
Team A wins 1H to Team A Wins Game*
Team A on ML to Team A Pointspread
Team A on ML to Team A Runline (baseball)
...the list goes on and on!

*can do the same with O/U totals

I was speaking of correlations that you can actually play.