Everyone's favorite subject...currently have 1 local who lets me parlay the over and the favorite in any CFB game, but not the dog and the under.
It seems like these used to be unanimously considered +EV, and although it would probably be optimal to bet both the fav/over and dog/under parlays, I should still be betting the fav/over parlay if that's my only option. Did some extra googling and came across the following link:
https://www.safestbettingsites.com/n...elated-parlays
which states:
"UPDATE March 2016: These bets were profitable for quite awhile, but that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore. Bet these at your own risk. Offshore sportsbooks still don’t accept them, but betting them with locals in the past few years have seen subpar results. It seems the market has adjusted. The information will be left below, but it is our opinion that these wagers are now -EV."
This really confused me, and after thinking about it still doesn't make sense . How could "the market" adjust to wagers that were outright banned at every book that actually sets the market (Pinny, CRIS, etc). I'm almost positive that's not correct, so I'm deciding to forge ahead with these, albeit in a somewhat cautious manner.
It seems that the threshold of the spread/total ratio used to be 33% (i.e. they would bet these parlays when the absolute value of the spread was at least 33% of the total, and presumably increase their wager size as that ratio increased). Without being able to do any research yet, I've arbitrarily set my threshold at 50% and bet the following fav-over combos in weeks 1a and 1b:
Stanford -30.5/over 50.5
Washginton -30/over 52
Clemson -39/over 51 (this one is absurdly good)
Oklahoma -44.5/over 62.5
Auburn -35/over53
Again, I'm not sure how the market could have adjusted to wagers they can't make. If I'm missing something there I'd appreciate someone explaining it to me!
