NHL Correlated Parlays

[ctv1116]

I'm just curious, is there any money to be made parlaying the puckline with the over/under? That is, parlaying the favorite -1.5 and the over, or parlaying the underdog +1.5 with the under?

[ohnonotthat]

Off the top of my head - I doubt it.

I don't follow hockey closely enough to give you a solid yes or no but I can tell you what to look for and you can decide whether hockey offers it.

You often see matchups where you say to yourself, "I don't know who's going to win (or cover) here nor do I have any opinion as to the over-under however, if this game does go over I can't see how "X" loses". Or it might be the reverse; "no clue as to who wins or the total points scored but if this game does go under "Y" can't lose".

Note: This is a perfect example of ALL POODLES ARE DOGS BUT NOT ALL DOGS ARE POODLES, meaning an if-bet might be a better play if you can find a book that takes side-if-total in the same game.

These situations are not at all rare in basketball or football; they even pop up in baseball now and then but hockey, featuring very low scoring games where 1-goal victories are the rule rather than the excepton, wouldn't seem to lend itself to this sort of play.

There was a game some years back between the Colts (when they were awful) and the Bills who were in the midst of their 0-4 run (but still a great team).

The line was Bills -19 . . . Total 39 (maybe 39.5)

19 point spreads in the pros are IMO coin tosses and the total too seemed "about right" then I had an epiphany.

The Bills don't cover if this turns into a shootout and they don't lose if it's a defensive struggle.

I placed two bets; "Bills-if-under" and "Colts-if over".

The Bills shut them out and won 34-0. Buffalo could have scored as many as they needed to but put the brakes on when the game got out of hand; while the last TD scared the crap out of me it was a once a decade fluke and should never have occured.

The Colts wouldn't have scored if both teams stayed out there all night.

- Humorous aside: I had two straight plays and a parlay on Giants + 250 (ML) / Under 40 when they played Buffalo in the Superbowl and felt terribly clever when Mr. Norwood missed wide right as time ran out; if the kick is good I lose both.

I just don't see this sort of thing occuring often - if ever - in hockey.

I am curious as to whether this would have been worked bak in the mid-80's when Edmonton was AVERAGING 6+ goals/game.

I don't think there were many books that even offered totals on hockey back then (lol - alot of them had the Oilers' games off the board completely unless they were playing a quality team) but if you could have found a place to parlay totals and sides back then I suspect you'd be rich.

"If I knew then what I know now." (sigh)

*

The concept (if not so much the specifics) are covered in GETTING THE BEST OF IT. It's a 2+2 and should be available on this site; if it's not I'm sure it won't be hard to find.

[DougOzzzz]

I would disagree. I don't have an NHL DB, but I think if a book allows a parlay of the under and the dog +1.5, there must be some correlation there.

You can think of it like this. Team A is superior to team B. In the long run, team A should outscore team B by a factor of 1.5. If the two teams are playing and a goal scores, there's a 60% chance team A scored.

Now, in a low scoring game - say, 5 goals, team B should cover the 1.5 spread 66.3% of the time. In a shootout (10 goals), team A will win by 2+ 63% of the time. Also note that odd totals favor team B's chances of winning or losing by just 1.

I'm not saying each goal scored is a completely independant event unaffected by previous action in the game, but you get the point. More goals = greater chance of blowout.

Also, Pinnacle does not allow parlays on NHL games (which usually means there is something to be won there).

enough of one that no sportsbook I know of will allow me to actually place the parlay.

[Zurvan]

I placed a bet like this at Bowmans. Columbus +1.5/Under 5.5. I think it can be a good bet, given a specific situation. In this case, it was two teams (Columbus & Calgary) who'd been having trouble scoring, and had decent goaltending.