Quote Originally Posted by nfl_huskers:
Hey Scrivero,
Sorry for the confusion. I'm actually not going away from the originally posted parlay system. I'm trying to figure out which games are the best bets to include in the 2-game parlay combinations. The games with the least chance of ending in a 1-run victory for the ML favorite are the games that should be included.
I'll see if I can query up NHL data in a similar fashion after I do a little back testing with 2016 MLB data. I plan to have some better rules in place before the season starts, so plays can be posted here.
Thanks for the feedback!
Ah, I think I was the one that confused you. I was actually referring to the original starter of the thread with the comment of "moving away from the parlays" and to his post number 12 in this thread where he was just playing the singles, if I understood him right.
But to you nfl_huskers, thank you for analysing this stuff! Thanks for sharing the NHL queries' results as well.
It sounds like the original idea would work best with MLB. I tried to figure out something with a similar idea for NHL. With "the similar idea" I am referrjng to playing both sides of a game in some way and using the fact/statement that nfl_huskers said of "the chance of the ML favorite winning by exactly one goal is too high".
My first idea would be this:- Take two games where there is a clear ML favorite, e.g. tonight Detroit-Carolina (+162 vs -180).
- Play ML for the favorite.
- Play handicap of +1,5 for the dog.
If the game ends with exactly 1 goal difference for the favorite, then we win both bets. If it ends with a 2 goal differential for the favorite or more, we win the ML bet. If it ends with the dog winning ML or with more than 1 goal, we win just the +1,5 bet.
So lets calculate with that exact example game (1 unit per each bet):1. We win both options (fav wins ML with exactly 1 goal): ML gives us a profit of 0,555 units, and the +1,5 win gives us a profit of 0,552 units. Total profit of +1,107 units.
2. We win just the ML (with 2 goal difference or more): Loss of -0,445 units.
3. We win just the +1,5 dog: -0,448 units.
If at least 33 % of games (and one 2/3 end with either just ML win or +1,5 dog win, doesnt matter which as the odds are almost the same) in a certain odds category end up with the ML favorite winning with exactly 1 goal, then this system would have a ROI of +10,7 %.
That sounds pretty awesome, but lets test another game with different odds, a more even game of Florida-Buffalo (-120 vs +109): 1. We win both options (fav wins ML with exactly 1 goal): ML gives us a
profit of 0,833 units, and the +1,5 win gives us a profit of 0,363
units. Total profit of +1,196 units.
2. We win just the ML (with 2 goal difference or more): Loss of -0,167 units.
3. We win just the +1,5 dog: -0,637 units.
This gets a bit more complicated to calculate and back test, as one would have to check how many of the games with such odds end with just the ML win and how many with just the +1,5 dog win. Lets assume that 1/3 games end with just teh ML win and 1/3 games with just the +1,5 dog win. with both hitting 33 % of the time, our ROI would be +19,6 %.
Ok, not sure if I trust my calculations but thats how it would go. Its probably more realistic to expected that more than 1/3 of the games end with the +1,5 dog being the result so the ROI would be smaller. No way to know before backtesting though.
Question (to nfl_huskers): Can you check how many games with a clear ML favorite (e.g. between -170 to -190, or any other odds) ended with the ML favorite winning by exactly 1 goals? I have all the data but I cant do SDQL queries, hence my "manual" method on Excel would take forever.
Could you also check another category of ML favorite of ca -110 to -130 like in my second example and this time also see the portion of games ending to results +1,5 dog and ML (with a 2 goal difference or more)?It could actually basically be any other ML favorite with any odds. I highly doubt that playing each and every game like this would be profitable, but finding a certain category of games that end with an exactly 1 goal difference and high enough odds +1,5 dog and fav ML would bring the cash.
My second idea would be:- Have a similar game with similar ML favorite (e.g. -170 to -190)
- Play the +1,5 for the dog and the -1,5 for the favorite.
This way, the numbers for possible options would look like this (the same Detroit-Carolina game:1. We win just the PL (+163), game end with a 2 goal difference for the ML fav: profit of of +0,63 units
2. We win just the +1,5 dog (game ends with ML fav winning with 1 goal, or the dog winning with any amount of goals: -0,448 units.
So basically, what we would need to run as test would be, whether the game ends with a 2 goal difference for the ML favorite more often than to any other results. Then again, does this make sense at all? Because, lets calculate us playing just the PL for the ML favorite and nothing more, options:
1. We win the PL, profit of 1,63 units.
2. We lose the PL, loss of -1 units..
This one being profitable depends on the amount of games that end PL. I dont think it would work. I have previously backtested extensicely the situation of a ML favorite of minimum -225 winning ML or PL or the min +200 dog winning ML or Reg and the results were basically +-0.
I'd say that the second idea probably has no chance of working, but the first idea might, if there is a certain group of games with certain criteria (e.g. specific odds, specific O/U, etc. etc.).
Now this became a rather long post. I must warn that I might have misthought or miscalculated something in there, happens sometimes. I like to write everything out like this though, to see what I think and at the same time see if the things I think would make any sense as actual systems.
)
Hot Forum Topics
