I wouldn't call it a "code of ethics" cuz we're rooting for a team/side/event to lose when there is somebody on the other side. Rather, I call it my "cardinal rules" of betting. Here are two:
-You NEVER combine a side and a total for a game
Ex: Picking a team and parlaying it / or not parlaying it with a total.
Scenario: You make a straight wager of Patriots -7 and a straight wager of the OVER 52 for that game. Somewhere towards the end of the game, the Patriots are covering the -7 BUT the over has not hit yet. Patriots are not scoring anymore, running out the clock and playing d whereas the other team wants to score but that will mess with the spread. See the conflict?
-I personally don't parlay. Why? Well, straight wagering is hard enough as it is, why complicate it even further? The day when I achieve a win rate of higher than 52.38% and don't feel challenged anymore with straight wagers, I may consider betting parlays. IMHO, parlays are from the start..
"Schrödinger's bet." A bet that loses when you bet it but wins when you DON'T bet it...
I wouldn't call it a "code of ethics" cuz we're rooting for a team/side/event to lose when there is somebody on the other side. Rather, I call it my "cardinal rules" of betting. Here are two:
-You NEVER combine a side and a total for a game
Ex: Picking a team and parlaying it / or not parlaying it with a total.
Scenario: You make a straight wager of Patriots -7 and a straight wager of the OVER 52 for that game. Somewhere towards the end of the game, the Patriots are covering the -7 BUT the over has not hit yet. Patriots are not scoring anymore, running out the clock and playing d whereas the other team wants to score but that will mess with the spread. See the conflict?
-I personally don't parlay. Why? Well, straight wagering is hard enough as it is, why complicate it even further? The day when I achieve a win rate of higher than 52.38% and don't feel challenged anymore with straight wagers, I may consider betting parlays. IMHO, parlays are from the start..