1.90 odds in sports gives you 50% chance fo winning.

[$crypto$]

The house edge is usually in favor of the casino and no matter how high or low the odds are, the casino are still people that benefits the more. Success in betting doesn't come by playing the 1.90 odd repeatedly but you can combine different small odds and stake on it with the amount you can afford to lose. Even small odds doesn't guarantee a huge win. If you take gambling as a business, be ready to lose unexpected times and also to win in unexpected times.

I would rather bet on higher odds than combine two bets into a parlay. Based on what I've read, parlays are often money traps designed to entice us with the potential for bigger winnings. The more legs we add to a parlay, the lower our chances of winning, which is why sportsbooks favor bettors who enjoy parlays. The allure of a big payout might be tempting, but the reality is that the odds of hitting a large parlay are slim.

Parlay is more tempting I often do this because the odds are increasing even though choosing small odds but still that's what the bookies want, if we take one wrong bet that is entered into parlay then the entire bet will be lost even though this opportunity is small but I still do it.
Several times winning luckily, on the other hand, I have lost consecutively in parlay betting.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

The house edge is usually in favor of the casino and no matter how high or low the odds are, the casino are still people that benefits the more. Success in betting doesn't come by playing the 1.90 odd repeatedly but you can combine different small odds and stake on it with the amount you can afford to lose. Even small odds doesn't guarantee a huge win. If you take gambling as a business, be ready to lose unexpected times and also to win in unexpected times.

I would rather bet on higher odds than combine two bets into a parlay. Based on what I've read, parlays are often money traps designed to entice us with the potential for bigger winnings. The more legs we add to a parlay, the lower our chances of winning, which is why sportsbooks favor bettors who enjoy parlays. The allure of a big payout might be tempting, but the reality is that the odds of hitting a large parlay are slim.

I know how slim the chances of hitting a huge win in a parlay can be but some time, a wise gambler always cash out some percentage of the potential winning which could still be a significant profit depending on what the potential winning amount was. Sometimes, I just prefer to add lots of leg in the parlay so that if there's a cash-out offer, it will be a big manageable for me to take it.

[topbitcoin]

I would rather bet on higher odds than combine two bets into a parlay. Based on what I've read, parlays are often money traps designed to entice us with the potential for bigger winnings. The more legs we add to a parlay, the lower our chances of winning, which is why sportsbooks favor bettors who enjoy parlays. The allure of a big payout might be tempting, but the reality is that the odds of hitting a large parlay are slim.

Parlay is more tempting I often do this because the odds are increasing even though choosing small odds but still that's what the bookies want, if we take one wrong bet that is entered into parlay then the entire bet will be lost even though this opportunity is small but I still do it.
Several times winning luckily, on the other hand, I have lost consecutively in parlay betting.

Parlay betting is more interesting, more tense and you have to think harder to choose the team that will get a win in the match or draw, this does provide a small chance of winning, no wonder the winnings offered are very large if we can predict the match correctly in all the matches entered.

It is natural that you often lose in parlay betting because it is difficult, but it is not impossible if you are used to and know the conditions of the matches you take to bet, your big wins make up for your losing streak.

[_act_]

I know how slim the chances of hitting a huge win in a parlay can be but some time, a wise gambler always cash out some percentage of the potential winning which could still be a significant profit depending on what the potential winning amount was. Sometimes, I just prefer to add lots of leg in the parlay so that if there's a cash-out offer, it will be a big manageable for me to take it.

If I want to bet on a single match, I can use $10 to bet it if it is having a odd of 1.5 or higher. If it is parley that consist of 3 matches, I can use $3.3 to bet it if the matches are 1.5 odds each. What I would win is still $15 for both bets. The matches can not be of the same odds but I just use it to explain it. I am not expecting huge winning and I will not cashout. I do not go more than 3 matches in parley. Parley is more of a way to lose in betting if the matches selected are getting more.

Not that you are wrong. Some poeple can select many matches and winning huge amount of money when some of the matches are not yet played. That is what you are talking about. Some people are tempted to cashout and cashout instead of waiting for the other matches to begin and end.

It is natural that you often lose in parlay betting because it is difficult, but it is not impossible if you are used to and know the conditions of the matches you take to bet, your big wins make up for your losing streak.

No matter how you know that league or the clubs that are playing, when a bookie see his customers going for parley, they are happy because they know that more than 95% or more of the bet would be lost by the bettors.

[Yatsan]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run? This is like giving the house an edge of 10%, and that's too much to give, yet we are too confident in winning. Are we being realistic here, or are we just too confident in our skills that we believe we can win 60% of the time?

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

I agree just like the others have said that in the long run, it makes it difficult to get an advantage, even when you are winning more often than the 50% chance might suggest. You will need to win at a higher rate than expected for winning against house edges if you need to bet consistently in such a challenge. While some of us and other gamblers can win in the long run at least with confidence that most of the time requires more sophisticated strategies or detailed research picking next option outcome is okay, math magic and outside the house edge is critical to realistic expectations. For starters, always know the edge of the house, and try to bid where you have a good advantage and also being well informed with discipline will help you make good decisions and enhance your chances for long-term success.

[Natalim]

No matter how you know that league or the clubs that are playing, when a bookie see his customers going for parley, they are happy because they know that more than 95% or more of the bet would be lost by the bettors.

That's the reality; I'm not sure about the percentage, but our chance of winning a parlay bet is very slim. Just a quick spelling correction: it's "parlay," not "parley." Anyway, back to the topic, I think we should consider betting on parlays only if we aren't too serious because it's the kind of small bet with a huge reward, so that alone tells us that our chances are very slim. I think a 2-legged parlay is only equivalent to about 30% in terms of chances, so imagine how much slimmer it gets with more legs.

[EarnOnVictor]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run? This is like giving the house an edge of 10%, and that's too much to give, yet we are too confident in winning. Are we being realistic here, or are we just too confident in our skills that we believe we can win 60% of the time?

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

Some gamblers are doing well in gambling activities with even lower odds than 1.90, it's their plans that matter. The 1.90 is near to doubling your wagering amount (2.00), so what is the stress in that? Haven't you seen the gamblers betting on 1.40 odds and lower, it is all about your risk affinity, chance of winning and the management style you use to cover up for lapses. Just like in trading, I apply a good risk-to-reward ratio to my gambling. I prefer 2.00 odds to make it more convenient, often time, lower odds are welcome but can't be less than 1.80. The plan is that, with my high level of winning of about 75% in sports betting, I still have about a 25% chance to override the little 0.1 and 0.2 shortage of 2.00 in those bets. This is even as I often bet 2.00 and above to further help my calculations and override the shortage in those odds.

[danherbias07]

No matter how you know that league or the clubs that are playing, when a bookie see his customers going for parley, they are happy because they know that more than 95% or more of the bet would be lost by the bettors.

That's the reality; I'm not sure about the percentage, but our chance of winning a parlay bet is very slim. Just a quick spelling correction: it's "parlay," not "parley." Anyway, back to the topic, I think we should consider betting on parlays only if we aren't too serious because it's the kind of small bet with a huge reward, so that alone tells us that our chances are very slim. I think a 2-legged parlay is only equivalent to about 30% in terms of chances, so imagine how much slimmer it gets with more legs.

Super slim. We have to be wise with our parlays. If there's a chance for a cash-out, go for it, take advantage of that feature as much as possible. A win is still a win, even if the whole parlay wins in the final results, don't regret it.

I think this is why many sports bettors are failing on their first 10 tickets because they are getting greedy just after a single win. Afterward, they will make parlays which they think is easy because they won the first one but God knows how freaking difficult it is to complete a parlay and win as a result.
Well, experience will make a gambler wiser, I guess they will need to walk that path for them to know the reality.

[sunsilk]

In the long run, it differs per match and odds. 1.90 is a good one if I think that the team that I'll bet on has a bigger chance to win but it doesn't mean that I'll bet with the same odds or close to it for the same team.

50% of chance winning for that odd, I don't think it's worth taking. But if you are up to gamble and you want to have more wins as with that potential, then settle the odds and still make sure that you do your own research before placing a bet.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

I know how slim the chances of hitting a huge win in a parlay can be but some time, a wise gambler always cash out some percentage of the potential winning which could still be a significant profit depending on what the potential winning amount was. Sometimes, I just prefer to add lots of leg in the parlay so that if there's a cash-out offer, it will be a big manageable for me to take it.

If I want to bet on a single match, I can use $10 to bet it if it is having a odd of 1.5 or higher. If it is parley that consist of 3 matches, I can use $3.3 to bet it if the matches are 1.5 odds each. What I would win is still $15 for both bets. The matches can not be of the same odds but I just use it to explain it. I am not expecting huge winning and I will not cashout. I do not go more than 3 matches in parley. Parley is more of a way to lose in betting if the matches selected are getting more.

Not that you are wrong. Some poeple can select many matches and winning huge amount of money when some of the matches are not yet played. That is what you are talking about. Some people are tempted to cashout and cashout instead of waiting for the other matches to begin and end.

Your own strategy is good and I actually do stake up $10 or at least $5 if it's on a single game with a small odd, but sometimes too, in a parlay I can risk up to $10 and the games selected could be more than ten with different odds. I know that gambling is a game of luck but before I stake in such accumulator, I usually take my time to do the prediction and I only add the game that I feel so sure that it's supposed to be successful if the team doesn't fuck up. I use such strategy so that the cashout can be a bit meaningful amount  .

[sompitonov]

I know how slim the chances of hitting a huge win in a parlay can be but some time, a wise gambler always cash out some percentage of the potential winning which could still be a significant profit depending on what the potential winning amount was. Sometimes, I just prefer to add lots of leg in the parlay so that if there's a cash-out offer, it will be a big manageable for me to take it.

If I want to bet on a single match, I can use $10 to bet it if it is having a odd of 1.5 or higher. If it is parley that consist of 3 matches, I can use $3.3 to bet it if the matches are 1.5 odds each. What I would win is still $15 for both bets. The matches can not be of the same odds but I just use it to explain it. I am not expecting huge winning and I will not cashout. I do not go more than 3 matches in parley. Parley is more of a way to lose in betting if the matches selected are getting more.

Not that you are wrong. Some poeple can select many matches and winning huge amount of money when some of the matches are not yet played. That is what you are talking about. Some people are tempted to cashout and cashout instead of waiting for the other matches to begin and end.

Your own strategy is good and I actually do stake up $10 or at least $5 if it's on a single game with a small odd, but sometimes too, in a parlay I can risk up to $10 and the games selected could be more than ten with different odds. I know that gambling is a game of luck but before I stake in such accumulator, I usually take my time to do the prediction and I only add the game that I feel so sure that it's supposed to be successful if the team doesn't fuck up. I use such strategy so that the cashout can be a bit meaningful amount  .

I also like the strategy in which I choose the most confident matches for me. For example, I would prefer to bet on 1 match out of 10 that I chose, but if I am completely confident in it, and in the rest I had a borderline decision. Of course, I get a cold shower after it ends not in my favor, but who said that if we believe in something, it will come true?

In general, I have never liked odds below 1 and I prefer to take more risk. But at the same time, I see how even more players bet on small odds to win at least something, but with a higher probability. But sometimes later I see threads in which a player complains that he lost with odds of 1.1 

[Distinctin]

In general, I have never liked odds below 1 and I prefer to take more risk. But at the same time, I see how even more players bet on small odds to win at least something, but with a higher probability. But sometimes later I see threads in which a player complains that he lost with odds of 1.1 

They may enjoy more wins with lower odds due to the high probability of winning, but if they look at the big picture, they'll see that it's not profitable. I would rather go for the 50-50 market offered by the bookies, avoid parlays, and limit the number of bets so I can maintain my focus.

Sports betting doesn't need to take up much of our time. If we aim to win, we need to focus, and since we're only human and don't have an extreme ability to multitask, we should prioritize the quality of our bets.

[pawanjain]

So if you keep choosing odds of 1.90 or lower with a 50% chance of winning, do you think you can win in the long run? This is like giving the house an edge of 10%, and that's too much to give, yet we are too confident in winning. Are we being realistic here, or are we just too confident in our skills that we believe we can win 60% of the time?

Are there any gamblers here which are betting with those kinds of odds that has already achieve a long term success?

Everyone has different targets and strategies in sports betting ,some people aim to get 2 odds or probably lower than that on a weekly or daily basis, the lower the odds the chances of it playing out is quite high but this doesn't guarantee a hundred percent successful outcome. I have played single games lower than 1.50 odds that turned out to be unsuccessful. Following this kind of strategy can be quite helpful but you can't always have winning streaks

That's not the right way of portraying it because even if it the bet is having lower odds then it doesn't guarantee a win.
The probability will still be 50-50 for the game. I have myself did this experiment once and placed all my bets on the ones with lower odds.
I lost almost 8/10 bets which shows that it's not the lower odds that always wins.
Also, luck is an important factor and we need to win our bets whether it be the one with lower odds or higher odds.

[stadus]

That's not the right way of portraying it because even if it the bet is having lower odds then it doesn't guarantee a win.
The probability will still be 50-50 for the game. I have myself did this experiment once and placed all my bets on the ones with lower odds.
I lost almost 8/10 bets which shows that it's not the lower odds that always wins.
Also, luck is an important factor and we need to win our bets whether it be the one with lower odds or higher odds.

We need to carefully analyze our bets and not fully rely on the odds. If we automatically assume that odds of 1.50 mean a sure win, we’re likely to lose easily. In popular events or games that attract a lot of bettors, bookies might offer lower odds that seem attractive, but sometimes it turns out to be just a trap. I believe these ideas aren't often discussed with beginners, but once you consistently gamble on sports and join various forums, you’ll come across theories that might make you think they have some truth to them. This can help you become more cautious with your decisions, so you don't easily fall into traps when you see odds that are too attractive or hard to resist.

[Woodie]

To some extent the 1.9 odds does stand to be at 50% probability of coming to happen, especially that these odds are dynamic in the sense that one second it can be 1.9 odds the next could be either 10 odds or 1.01 odds depending on whether your selection is winning or losing!

Am pretty sure OP is trying to say these odds have a 50% chance of happening...say thing as 1.01 odds ...it's these odds were sure bets people would have been taking them all day, everyday to download free money!! But for anybody trying to grow their bankroll faster or break even I think these are healthy odds imo.

[crwth]

It's hard to bet on those odds because it can also be the other way around. I think it's too risky for me to bet unless I know what I'm betting on and it feels like it's going to be a good match or outcome.

Realistically, it's not always going to be a long-term win. It's hard when I see it mathematically.

[Wapfika]

It's hard to bet on those odds because it can also be the other way around. I think it's too risky for me to bet unless I know what I'm betting on and it feels like it's going to be a good match or outcome.

Realistically, it's not always going to be a long-term win. It's hard when I see it mathematically.

It’s really hard to win in long term with this odds while the match is graded as even. You are losing 10% of your potential profit which is supposed to be x2 on an even match. It’s better to bet on matches that has a side with clear advantage or an underdog that has potential to reverse the result for a much better higher profitability.

I’d rather bet on Blackjack with a chance to get a x2.5 payout when Blackjack with same 50% chance of winning compared to a match that is considered as 50 chance winning while the payout is below 2.0.

[Blitzboy]

Its a numbers game, and if you dont understand the numbers, you're playing right into the bookmakers' hands.

Offering you 1.90 chances, they are not indicating a 50/50 chance. Your actual chances aresometimes reduced as they are building in a profit for themselves. You really ought to be smarter than that.

Thinking you can win 60% of the time when the odds are stacked against you is delusional. That is ignorance instead of confidence. You must have a plan and thorough knowledge of how the market operates if you are to challenge the system. And let me say, most people simply lack that.

This is about intelligence not about chance. Moreover, you would be better off saving your money in your pocket if you are not ready to commit the effort. The house always wins unless you are wiser than it is. And that is a hefty order as well.

[Coin_trader]

I’d rather bet on Blackjack with a chance to get a x2.5 payout when Blackjack with same 50% chance of winning compared to a match that is considered as 50 chance winning while the payout is below 2.0.

Blackjack is indeed the best when you will play it properly by the standard strategy. It has the lowest house edge while the payout on Blackjack is over x2 while you have the chance to double down your bet once the dealer has low card for a much higher profit.

Other games doesn’t offer this payout structure and just stick to the ratio and proportion of risk to payout with less payout due to house edge.

[betswift]

In the long run, it differs per match and odds. 1.90 is a good one if I think that the team that I'll bet on has a bigger chance to win but it doesn't mean that I'll bet with the same odds or close to it for the same team.

50% of chance winning for that odd, I don't think it's worth taking. But if you are up to gamble and you want to have more wins as with that potential, then settle the odds and still make sure that you do your own research before placing a bet.

I am with you here. It's everybody's choice to make a bet like that, with a twist to it that it may not go through. Analysis is key, as well as the cool head being on your shoulders while doing it.