Single or parlay?

[Akbarkoe]

In my opinion, the safest bet is a single bet, but it will not always be profitable, parlay bets are very risky even if you only bet on 2 teams, because one failure will destroy everything, both have their respective advantages if single requires a slightly large capital while parlay will be more economical but with a higher risk

A single bet is not always profitable but the profit is relatively small because it is based on the odds received so the sentence is more precise, parlay is always better in providing odds for more profit but the risk must also be borne if you lose one then everything will become a loss, and it is not a good choice for someone who is not ready to lose.

[vanesha]

Parlays are worth trying. They minimize losses. If you bet a single bet at odds of 1.97, you'll only bet once. Yes, you only have one chance. But if you split it in half, into two options with the same odds, you'll have a greater chance of winning, although the potential profit will be very small due to the splitting. This still likely involves sacrificing your capital, even if you don't incur significant losses this way.

[justinlamode]

Parlay: 1.40 x 1.40 = 1.96 or Single bet at 1.96 ?

My choice will depend on the matches involved. There are some matches that may be low odd but very risky and on the other hand, there are some high odd matches that are not high risk. So I'll measure the risk level of the matches and then decide if the single is better or I will go with the parlay. However, I usually prefer few games in my ticket because the fewer the less risky the game will be.

[Furious 7]

I think it depends on the conditions and the club we are betting on not just focusing on the odds.
Indeed in terms of multi odds 1.9 is more attractive especially if it's a single compared to multi which has smaller odds, but is it worth the risk in the end.
We must look at the comparison of the competing forces not only the odds displayed because it could be that the odds of 1.9 are not benefited when the condition of the club we support is not much better than the opposing club and for parlay 1.4 it becomes more comfortable because it is at the favorite club (this is just an example).
So in this case I will look for things that are profitable for me when the odds are 1.9 but seeing the condition of the club we bet on is good then the single is worth it but when 1.9 but not convincing and parlay 1.4 makes us more confident then I will choose 1.4 as a bet.

[passwordnow]

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

I always choose the single bet. Because if it wins, then it wins and if it lose, my other bets won't be affected. I think that's the advantage that I can think of that. That's why all of my bets are being done in single bets, they're alone and I'm happy with that kind of choice to be honest. As for the combination of the other low odds. I have a specific odds that I won't be picking and that's the reason single bets that I take usually goes from @1.30 as the lowest or I can go as low as @1.20 if I really like to bet it as a single bet.

[Dump3er]

Parlay: 1.40 x 1.40 = 1.96 or Single bet at 1.96 ?

I actually tried this before, kind of like a small experiment, but it didn’t really last… I ended up losing anyway.

In my thinking, 1.40 odds should be “safer” since it has a higher chance of winning, but the problem is the payout is too low. So the idea is to combine two of them just to reach a decent odds like 1.96. But then again, once you combine it, you now need both bets to win. One mistake and everything is gone.

So now I’m not really sure anymore if that “safer odds” logic still holds when you turn it into a parlay.

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

If you try to go for parlays for a longer period of time, I think you would be surprised how often the favorites fail or how often events don't turn out to be true when it was such a high probability that it would happen. I have tried many of these strategies many times and I am sure you know these shared bet slips when a bettor goes for 10 bets in one slip and goes for low odds like 1.10 to 1.30. Almost always there is one bet at least to go wrong. It would be interesting to understand how the bookies calculate their expected outcomes, but I think there is no definite answer to your question here.

You can see matches go exactly the way they are expected to go and then you see matches where it all goes wrong. It could be coincidence because of a red card in football or any other surprising event. It is all gambling at the end of the day.

[Pi-network314159]

So now I’m not really sure anymore if that “safer odds” logic still holds when you turn it into a parlay.

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

Actually the single game is very good provided that the odd is high and can give a possible return quickly. Let's say I bet on a single 2odd game with $100 and it happens to play quickly and I will make 2x profit. Also I may decide to gamble e
By risking multiple games that will result 2 odd and that will jncreythe risk. So for me I prefer single game with less risk, but hardly you see a game with big odd without risk.

[rbynxx]

Parlay: 1.40 x 1.40 = 1.96 or Single bet at 1.96 ?

I actually tried this before, kind of like a small experiment, but it didn’t really last… I ended up losing anyway.

In my thinking, 1.40 odds should be “safer” since it has a higher chance of winning, but the problem is the payout is too low. So the idea is to combine two of them just to reach a decent odds like 1.96. But then again, once you combine it, you now need both bets to win. One mistake and everything is gone.

So now I’m not really sure anymore if that “safer odds” logic still holds when you turn it into a parlay.

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

Single bet because you don't have to worry about the other one if you're into parlay bet. I think I've done the very small odds of 1.2x or something before with lot of legs but it didn't go well, there's one or two who will really mess that leg. I think for single bet that 1.96x odds isn't that safe maybe try the 1.6 or 1.7 odds as it's more in real terms to be hit by a team or a player. It's not rocket science that parlay is indeed profitable if you do hit it but it's much harder but I think single is not that bad only if you're on a winning streak.

[terrific]

Parlay: 1.40 x 1.40 = 1.96 or Single bet at 1.96 ?

I actually tried this before, kind of like a small experiment, but it didn’t really last… I ended up losing anyway.

In my thinking, 1.40 odds should be “safer” since it has a higher chance of winning, but the problem is the payout is too low. So the idea is to combine two of them just to reach a decent odds like 1.96. But then again, once you combine it, you now need both bets to win. One mistake and everything is gone.

So now I’m not really sure anymore if that “safer odds” logic still holds when you turn it into a parlay.

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

If you are sure of the combined bets, then proceed to that because that increases the risk and so the reward is.
But if you like to go slow and without having to think of what if the combination falls to losing, you go with the single bet.
That's the pros and cons of parlays and single bets. So, if you're the guy who likes to combine bets and increase the rewards/risk, you know what to choose.
But if you're just the casual sportsbettor, you know that you'll enjoy more the singles.

[Makus]

This is not complicated at all, playing singles gives you more advantage because you are not combining games which reduces the chances of winning. the only problem with singles is the fact that you have to stake high a lot of times to get a hugh value because the odds are not always huge. parlays are quite risky but a lot of people prefer this because it requires them to stake just a small amount of money to win big. At the end of the day it all depends on the gamblers choice, it is better to choose what works best for you

[Hispo]

This is not complicated at all, playing singles gives you more advantage because you are not combining games which reduces the chances of winning. the only problem with singles is the fact that you have to stake high a lot of times to get a hugh value because the odds are not always huge. parlays are quite risky but a lot of people prefer this because it requires them to stake just a small amount of money to win big. At the end of the day it all depends on the gamblers choice, it is better to choose what works best for you

Actually, of you take a look at the way OP explained his experiment, you would realize he his actually talking about using multiple bets to equalize the same odds one would have gotten with a single money line bet.
OP was not pursuing crazily high odds or multipliers with his experiment, he was seeking for consistency, and he even admitted he was not able to achieve it through the use of multiple bets or combined ones.

Again, if the use of combined bets gave more consistency to bets, the market would not be like we all know it today.

[Charles-Tim]

A single bet is not always profitable but the profit is relatively small because it is based on the odds received so the sentence is more precise, parlay is always better in providing odds for more profit but the risk must also be borne if you lose one then everything will become a loss, and it is not a good choice for someone who is not ready to lose.

Not just parlay is not a good choice for someone who is not ready to lose, also single bets. In short, gambling should not be gotten into by anyone that is not ready to lose the money deposited into his gambling site's account. Also casinos games are among. No game is a guaranteed profit until it has been played.

Another thing is that because someone go for parlay, the person can decide to use lower amount of money, unlike when betting on a single match. Although, some people might be very greedy.

[Rashlyowl]

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

Usually I only bet singles rather than parlays & I never really tried both with the same total odds. In my personal opinion, single bets have a better chance of winning than parlays, even though the total odds obtained are the same between the two. This is because of the existence of variants. In single bets, we don't have any variants, only single ones. Meanwhile, in parlays, we have many variants. You can find out about these variants in various sources to understand them more deeply.

[alani123]

If you're trying to implement a strategy in your betting it's better to play single bets for a long term strategy because more matches on the same ticket introduce more entropy.

There's a million things that can happen in a single match. Players of the same team accidentally hitting each other and having to be lead out bleeding? Maybe 1/3000 chance. But if you play parlay you have double the chances and this single event on one match could make your whole ticket a losing ticket.

Look into the statistics and see what fits your budget. Adjust your budget accordingly. If your bookies of preference allow low enough waggers then it's more flexible in how risky the strategy you try can be.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

Parlay: 1.40 x 1.40 = 1.96 or Single bet at 1.96 ?

I actually tried this before, kind of like a small experiment, but it didn’t really last… I ended up losing anyway.

In my thinking, 1.40 odds should be “safer” since it has a higher chance of winning, but the problem is the payout is too low. So the idea is to combine two of them just to reach a decent odds like 1.96. But then again, once you combine it, you now need both bets to win. One mistake and everything is gone.

So now I’m not really sure anymore if that “safer odds” logic still holds when you turn it into a parlay.

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

Personally, I would go for the odds on single bet, but I would not stake only it, I would still add some more 2,  3 or 4 games with high odds  after careful analysis and try my luck. I see no wisdom in accumulating multiple little odds and increasing the risk on my part. I go for parlays, I don't like single bets, but I enjoy parlays of fewer selections with higher odds.

I see you're disturbed since you're really interested in winning, for me, I don't really care much if I win or loose as long as I'm having fun.

[rezakurnia66]

Have small budget for betting, personally I prefer with parlay because possibility winning much although you have small fund for placing bet, with parlay or multiple bet each match you placed bet has odd around @1,40 to @1.60 and placing around three until ten matches you can earn much but all your bet must be accurate.
For gambler have much fund I don't think problem placing single bet exactly placing bet for the team has bigger chance for winning the match, indeed small odd but with much fund has higher winning than using small fund for placing at single bet. Usually I placed for multiple bet or parlay but at the weekend many matches and seeing the top teams only with bigger ratio for winning the match.

[OsaiEmma]

Parlay: 1.40 x 1.40 = 1.96 or Single bet at 1.96 ?

I actually tried this before, kind of like a small experiment, but it didn’t really last… I ended up losing anyway.

In my thinking, 1.40 odds should be “safer” since it has a higher chance of winning, but the problem is the payout is too low. So the idea is to combine two of them just to reach a decent odds like 1.96. But then again, once you combine it, you now need both bets to win. One mistake and everything is gone.

So now I’m not really sure anymore if that “safer odds” logic still holds when you turn it into a parlay.

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

There is still so much uncertainty even in the so called "single safe odd", these are all just based on probability and speculation, it is not definite. but when you keep increasing the uncertainty and variables in your bet slip, your chances of winning decreases too. Let's do a little math;

A single game have a 50 50 chance that is 50% chance of winning, here we have a single variable. Multiple games, let's say 2 games, despite being a "safe odd" still do have a 50 50 chance, that is 50% chance of winning, so right now you have two 50% chances,  you'll be looking to beat the individual chances, and the collective chance. Then your odds of winning will keep shrinking.

Mathematically;

50% is 0.5 right, with the 2 games it will be 0.5 x 0.5 which is 0.25 that's 25% chance of winning.

So that's why I feel a single game tends to give more better chance of winning than parley.

[jaberwock]

I would go with parlay. I know that the odds are lower in theory because it's two games and not one, and that would give a higher wider net for anything to go wrong. But it's the same and people need to realize that same odds are usually same possibilities.

But on a 1.40 chance we are talking about almost a sure thing from a team, it's a game between a great huge club and a team that is at relegation zone. Basically we are saying "would you bet the first place and second place when they are playing the last two places? Or would you rather bet on 7th place to beat 9th place?" And when you think like that, answer is easy.

[YOSHIE]

So now I’m not really sure anymore if that “safer odds” logic still holds when you turn it into a parlay.

In sports betting, especially football, small and large odds are not a hope and guarantee for us to win, it could be that the match ends in a draw and so on.

Well, the career of the opponent or other team must also be considered before placing a bet, for this reason, on average and in my experience of gambling and placing sports bets often in the second half, I often ignore bets in the first half.

I have been doing this strategy for a long time and most of the bets are successful, I look at the development of the match first, when the second half is played I then place a bet, so I don't guide on odds anymore, guide on live matches.

[Webetcoins]

Based on your experience, which one do you think actually gives better chance to be profitable? Do you stick with single bets even if the odds are higher, or do you still prefer combining lower odds to build value?

Do not forget that you are gambling with house edge, which means in a way the gambling is designed for almost all bettors to be losing. But I make most profit from single bets than parlay. So I will say it is better you go for single bets instead of parlay but that does not guarantee winning over a long period of time.

It definitely feels like accumulator (multi) bets are a bit of a trap. They only really make sense if there's some kind of insurance offer, or if you're using a free bet and aiming for higher odds.

I'm not great at maths, but intuitively it seems like combining multiple bets into one increases the overall house edge.

For example, if you place two bets at odds of 1.4, you're effectively exposing yourself to the house edge twice, compared to placing a single bet at around 1.96. It's similar to wagering $100 at 1.4x on a dice game, and then doing the same again; the house edge applies each time. In the long run, that will cost more than just placing a single $100 bet at 1.96x.