Topic: Why a single bet is better than a multi bet. - page 9. (Read 1124 times)

It's not obvious to any new gambler and it's a good reminder. Most bookmakers make tiny margins on individual bets and make most of their money from multi-bets, which should tell you that the odds are certainly not in the favor of the player in that situation. People are very poor at judging mathematical odds once the calculations start getting complicated, especially the average person trying to calculate a 5 string set of wins - you can guarantee that most people placing a bet will only see the huge multiplier and think they're making a wise choice. The odds against you actually go up exponentially the more games you add but the payout doesn't change to match it.

The OP went through the trouble of comparing a single bet and a multibet with similar odds to show us the difference in the house edge each bet has.

For example in the game of craps there are several instances in which the opposite happens, if you put some money on the pass bet with a house edge of 1.41% and it is successful then you can take the odds, which is a special side bet with zero house edge, so if you can at least bet as much as you did on the pass bet then the house edge is effectively halved, giving you one of the best possible bets you can get in any casino game.

Yes, for the most part you are completely right. But a little clarification: if you compare one $100 bet and 100 $1 bets with odds of 10, then the bookmaker's margin does not change. And here you can lengthen your game (make 100 bets instead of one) without hurting your chances. But if you make a multibet with the same odds, it will always be worse than a single (or 100 singles).

The same logic applies to almost every type of game where there is some kind of house edge. Basically the less you play, the less you pay the house. The more you play the more the house makes money from you and your chances of winning decreases dramatically. The simpler the better it is for the player. Using complicated sequences and strategies don't make any sense.

The reason people bet in multiple is to increase the winning potential and nothing more. That is the reason and they understand the risk that the chances of all the games being successful is narrow but that does not stop them to complain, regret and cry (especially when it is big potential) when they lose it 
The aspect of single bet is people don't go often with it because the odd is small and they will need increase in stake for the potential to be substantial but the risk is still there no one is guaranteed.

There is a difference between what you know and what you think you know and what the actual numbers (facts) are to prove your statement. OP has taken the time to make the calculations and he has posted actual examples to explain it.

#Boristhecat just ignore replies like this and thank you for taking the time to explain this. I have always thought that the bookmakers (house) has ran the numbers, but it is nice to see this.

You getting some merits for your efforts.  

I don't like multibetting. Had a few times where it backfired on me. For instance I had 3 out of 4 right and was almost sure the last bet and of course the team failed miserably and lost against all odds.
I prefer to take home a small win than get my hopes up having some right and then losing 1 bet and feeling like it was all for nothing.

For those who are really careful I think they will certainly do single bets but not for those who really risk everything in this case because indeed For multi bets themselves offer a bigger return but at the expense of increased risk because all that is needed is one choice lose for bets to return nothing. This is what really makes some people happy about this, but on the other hand things like this I still feel it depends on what we bet on but for the UCL match, especially Madrid against PSG, it is not even possible that many people will make multi bets.

For me multi bets are complicated since at the end you do need all the pieces in the right place. Considering bowling, you have to make sure to hit them all. But with single bets they are quite easy, you either win or you either loose. People are aware of these facts and they are also aware of the fact that they get more money if they win a multi bet than a single bet. I do think for experts multi bets are just another way of winning more than they bargained for, but for people who get anxious and cannot handle that much stress I do think single bet is still better than multi bets. Personally speaking, I would prefer a single bet, multi bets are more risky.

Some people are just very lucky with accumulation bet, but the numbers of time that will favor accumulation bets will be greatly reduce if comparing it with single match, betting single match is the best, but we all know that. The more you accumulate the more the bet will become riskier, even betting companies prefer people to accumulate so that they can lose very easily. K used to accumulate before and it ended bad and money losswas common, unlike now that I prefer just betting on a single match.

I considered cases with approximately the same multipliers. This is the nuance that many do not know. Of course, this is not a secret, but I decided to show it with an example (the matches in the example have not yet been played and anyone can check everything on their own).
Before commenting, read more carefully, you wrote nonsense.

This is not something new it's quite obvious that the odds of winning a multi bet are lower than a single bet,but the multiplier is higher and that's why people go for them.

Naturally, I will compare cases with approximately the same odds. Let's take Champions League matches and one Europa League match:

Sporting Lisbon - Manchester City FC  9.40 - 5.60 - 1.32

Paris Saint Germain - Real Madrid  2.07 - 3.70 - 3.50

Salzburg - Bayern Munich   8.80 - 6.00 - 1.32

Inter - Liverpool  3.40 - 3.60 - 2.14

Borussia Dortmund - Glasgow Rangers  1.37 - 5.40 - 8.00

The bookmaker's margin for the first match is: 1/9.4 + 1/5.6 + 1/1.32 =~ 1,0425 - Approximately 4% and in the selected matches it is almost the same (somewhere a little more than 4% and somewhere a little less, but the little things can be neglected).

So, if we bet on the victory of Sporting with odds of 9.4, then on average (if it were an infinitely repeating event) we will lose 4% from each bet.

What is the bookmakers margin if we make a multibet on: City win 1.32, PSG win 2.07, Bayern win 1.32, Liverpool win 2.14, Borussia win 1.37 with a total odds of 1.32x2.07x1.32x2.14x1.37=10.57? Since this is a multibet, not only the odds are multiplied, but also the margin. For the selected five events, it will be (1.04)⁵=1,21

Thus, the bookmaker's advantage in this multi bet will be 21% That is why bookmakers give various bonuses for multibets, for example, Sportsbet gives 10% if you select 5 events. But even with this bonus, the bookmaker's advantage is much higher than that of a bet with almost the same odds (11% vs 4%).

Therefore, if you think that you can predict more accurately than the bookmaker, avoid multi bets - it is much easier to beat the bookmaker when it has a handicap of 4% than 11% and higher.