bases_loaded;1502301 wrote:Teach me ole wise one

Follow me grasshopper and I will show you the light.

I will give you a good example from Sunday where I used a parlay effectively.

On Sunday...I liked the Raiders -4 and the Niners +3.

So instead of just betting 100 on the both games...I put both into a 2 team parlay for $100 to win $260.

Raiders win and I decide to hedge off the parlay with the Seahawks ML at -145. So I bet 145 to win 100 on the Seahawks ML.

So now I have two bets-

9ers +3 risk 100 to win 260
Seahawks ML risk 145 to win 100.

If the Seahawks win by 1 or 2 (unlikely...but look at some of the scores around the NFL. It definitely happens more than one would think.) I win both bets for +360. If the Seahawks win by exactly 3, my 2 team parlay becomes a straight bet 100 to win 90.91 that I would win as well as the Seattle ML bet for a total of +190.91. If Seattle wins and covers, I lose the parlay -100 but win the ML bet at +100 to break even. If the 49ers win the game outright, I win the parlay at for +260 but lose the ML bet -145 so that scenario comes out +115. That scenario actually costs me 85 bucks had I just bet 100 on each game.

If the Raiders would have lost, I would still be in a better spot because instead of losing a striaght bet for 110, I only lost 100. In that scenario, I would have just bet the 49ers +3. If they win, I break even at 1-1 instead of losing juice like normal and if they lose, instead of losing 220 I lose 210.

So in my situation, the Seahawks won so I won the ML bet and lost the parlay so I broke even instead of losing the juice I would have lost so the parlay saved me 10 bucks.

What's the law against this? Is it enforced on the business operating the gambling or the person who submits a bet?