Topic: Why a single bet is better than a multi bet. - page 5. (Read 1107 times)

You are absolutely right. How many times I have not made parlay bets I have never been able to win. After that I prefer to use single bets only. Although an acquaintance of mine still makes parlay bets for small amounts and sometimes wins. I prefer to minimize the risks, so I only choose single bets.  

Mighty paddy power! There was a time when I used to visit the outlets and online page all the time. It's before I was involved with crypto. Paddy Power, Coral etc were the best for offline and for online Paddy Power and Bet365 were best.

Well with a 20 fold accumulator you do not need a chance to win 250k you potential outcome will be more that the prize they have. I have seen slips to win with 20 or more selections but that's once in a million if not in billion times.

In single bet you have less house edge than any multi bet.

Single bets are easier to win than multy bets (parlay) because you only need to make 1 correct guess to win the bet. While multi bet (parlay) is much more difficult because you have to guess everything right to win the bet and that is the reason why single bet is better than multi bet (parlay) based on probability. Both have different risks in terms of probabilities, but multy bet (parlay) can make you win more money if all your guesses are correct.

But if you ask me then I prefer single bet over parlay because I can't win a parlay for long for 4 different match and league every week.

Single bets increase your chances of winning, it's hard to argue with that, but at the same time it is important that the odds be around 2, because even when betting on single bets with odds of 1.1-1.2 it is difficult to be profitable. You correctly said that everyone has their own strategy and it is important to follow the rules that help you not to do stupid things. If there is no strategy and the player is constantly changing something, then there will be more and more losing bets.

Think of it as self-fulfilling in the sense that you have a higher chance of winning. For example, in the color game that is very popular in our country, I usually bet two colors rather than one because I have a higher chance of winning. However, based on the comparison, it is riskier and results in a larger loss because you are betting twice. It is the same with doubling your bet simply in the hopes of recovering your losses but ends up losing a lot. If you are betting, the best option for me is to use single bets because you will not lose your money in a short period of time.

Sorry, yes, accumulator = acca = parlay = multibet. I'm not sure on the exact origins but my very first experience on sports was using UK books, they always used accumulator or acca for short. Then my first crypto books were North American and I noticed they used parlays. I think multi is a lot more popular these days but I actually only started seeing the term in the past few years. I could be wrong =) I probably still think "acca" or "parlay" a lot, but I suspect multi is a better term to avoid British and US ambiguations!

FJ does a regular "4+1" so you would need to bet 4 accas on UCL and the big leagues, NFL, NBA (to my memory) so that's all the big leagues covered anyway, and then you'd get a freebet back, based on the average amount of your past 4 accas. Essentially, a 25% cashback as a freebet, which is better than a lossback (which tends to be lower). Sorry for not being more descriptive. It's not active now but every season it comes by at least twice -- again, memory! Accas do need to have 1.3 min odds per leg, but that's easy.

Sportsbet does seem better yes, and every leg tacked on to the 5 gives you an additional boost... up to 100% boost on 10 legs maybe? But I think you lose out on the insurance advantage, and it has a 1.5 min odds per leg too, making your options a bit narrower.

What does accas mean? Abbreviation from the accumulated bets?
I don't have a Fortune Jack account, so I want to clarify - do they give cashback only on the occasion of a loss? It seems to me (although it’s probably worth making accurate calculations) that sportsbet conditions are better (bonus + boost + free insurance).

I know there's a lot of analysis already but I just want to add something since I consider myself a connoisseur of extreme singles haha.

1. Yes, the value is far, far higher in a single bet. Today, Real Madrid was as high as 4.40 on FortuneJack, and you can still get over 4.05 on Sportsbet with a Super Boost (they give out 2 or 3 a day on selected matched). You squeeze even more out on P2P markets -- I have Sporting Lisbon at 12.34 on Fairlay, it's about 10/1 elsewhere. So if you like playing underdogs, you squeeze out easily 10-20% value from one win.

2. You can get very good value with accas too, though, but only if you select price boosts or add in value from other promotions. FortuneJack has a regular 25% cashback on 4-legged accas, for example. I don't mind stringing together 4 legs over 2 or 3 weeks just for the 25% cashback, and I see very good value in this. Sportsbet has a running 5-leg boost+free insurance, it's pretty much 10% or more of a price boost PLUS the bet back if you lose one leg.

So in summary: in general I'd definitely say singles are better but only if the odds you get are significantly better than the mean. But promos on accas are not to be sniffed at.

If it's profitability to them, they should stay on it. That's like the rule for many gamblers, if they're winning on that particular strategy or game or type of betting, they should stay put there while they're being seen doing good from it. Some gamblers chooses to be dynamic and they would try almost everything that they can because they think that's good for them. Just so be it, if you're lucky and resulting very well in multibets, there's savor it while it last.

Understanding the odds is very important since this is not just a simple bet, and its better to have one bet compare to having a multi bet. The risk will be higher once you Multi bet, it may take you a lot of money once you got luck but expect worst if you didn’t win. The odds will tell you where to bet, ride with it.

Some gamblers are really risking their chance in multi-bets because of its profitability.
However, most of us are not very comfortable in doing so because of high risk of losing your money.
Hence, this decision depends on the gambler himself. But some are confident because they are very familiar with the sports.
And maybe, that's why Drake, for example got his recent big winnings using multi-bets.

I do single bets and I don't think I'm confident with multi bets. That's why I'm avoiding it and I'm sure that I'm better with the single bets.

There's nothing wrong doing that but it's all about the preference and experience that we've managed to gain. So, if you're too confident and you're doing better with multi bet, stick to it.

I think all the odds below 1.6 if you dont know how to managed this its pure shit. so many times all my bets go blow for the favourites or the 1.4 odds , its better go for a 1.7+ and with good return and dont made so many bets with lower odds.
And the 1.0 or 1.1 odds are the worst of all. No return and for a good return you need to play so much and in the end GG.

From what was said at the beginning of the thread, the lower the odds the worse the multiplier is for you. If you're stringing together lots of 1.05 bets that are almost guaranteed to win, you're likely walking away with the equivalent of 1.03 instead and you would be better off placing all those bets individually. These parlay bets are magic money makers to sports books, which is why you'll often see special offers like "if one leg of your 4-5 multi-bet lets you down, you'll get a free bet instead" - which is still highly profitable to them that they can run the offer constantly. They also love them because it is hard to lay a bet directly against them most of the time which stops arbitrage.

I do that in some occasions but I don't experience being profitable in the long run. Imagine, with 1.30 odds, you need to win at least 3 games so you'll get a return of 90% of your bet, I think it's not easily if you look at the big picture.

Same with this kind of strategy, I also made an experiment on this strategy and it still disappoint me in the end, the best strategy that I'm still using until now is just the single bet.

I also consider not using Multi bets, if I am not sure who's going to win, but yes it is a great thing to make a lot of money in just 1 game, but it is not advisable for new gamblers if they don't have any experience in betting at all, and not advisable aswell to bettors that usually don't have enough money to gain money in a multi-bet always takes precaution in using it, and I always prefer using single bets myself, but this kind of betting is surely not for everyone, but anyone can always try it if they are really familiar with the available games, but certainly I am only using it if I am comfortable with the given events or games.

Thank you for the detailed comparison of multi bets vs single bets. I haven't been using many multiple bets myself and never really thought about the edge of the bookmaker. The only time I use them is when they are free as part of a promotion from the bookmaker. My problem is that usually one leg of the bet is a loss, so I never made money from multi bets. That's probably why I try to stay away from then. Better to make 4-5 independent bets and get paid 3 times than losing all the money. For really experienced gamblers the multi bet might be an opportunity to make more profit, because you need less capital for the same payout. But for the average gambler I agree with you, it's best to stick to the single bets.

About Drake betting with $1.3 million is another topic on its own, it is entirely different from what we are discussing on this thread, anything related to that should totally be discussed there, this thread is about single bet versus accumulation bet. I understood that Drake's bet can be single match or not, but the amount used is too much. But let us just forcus on what this thread is all about while I have seen many people says single bet is better and less risky which was what I also went for.

They will take a big risk because they already have a lot of experience in analyzing each team and know a lot about those teams so it will not make it difficult for them to choose a team that can beat the opponent. In addition, they will also select multi-bet because they have a lot of knowledge in selecting the right team.

In placing the bet amount, they have also considered it and if they are sure of what they choose, they will also use big bets. It depends on how much guts they have in betting and how confident they are in analyzing bets.

There's also one thread here dedicating about Drake's winning - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/drake-wagered-13-million-in-super-bowl-bet-using-bitcoin-5385546. And seeing from his own instagram account. That's real for sure. Free promotion for stake, I don't think stake paid for this. This is a very good one as he has 100+M followers and some of them maybe encourage to take a look at stake. Wonder how much he already lost on this casino?