Is it possible multiple -EV wagers can combine into some kind of +EV wager(s)?
sounds retarded i know...
Could there be some combination of -ev wagers that create +ev wagers? Obviously correlated parlays would do that, but does not seem like that's what there going for here.
Parrondo's paradox, a paradox in game theory, has been described as: A combination of losing strategies becomes a winning strategy. It is named after its creator, Juan Parrondo, who discovered the paradox in 1996.
more info on Parrondo's paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parron...ox%20in%201996.
Found this on twitter, the "system" has been talked about for more than a few years so there is some back data on it. And the original thread is still going strong. Feel free to read through it, see what you think, think this is possible?
Anyhow I also copied / pasted so you don't have to visit twitters shit hole to read the thread. And also below the thread is the link to the original NHL thread, there is also a mlb thread that came first but I was to lazy to get it right now:
The twitter thread I found was written by:
Andrew Mack
@Gingfacekillah
Here is a link to the twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/Gingfacekillah/status/1635711305641529346
And here it is copy/pasted:
Parrondo's Paradox in Sports Betting ��
Parrondo's Paradox refers to the concept that 2 losing games can sometimes be combined to producing a winning result. This strategy might not be a perfect example, but I think you'll see what I mean.
Backstory: back in 2014, Danrules24 posted on the covers SB forum about a parlay martingale strategy applied to both MLB and NHL. On its surface it appeared to be completely degenerate - but the results over a few seasons were intriguing.
The strategy takes the two strongest road teams and parlays them together, then sequences bets in a martingale structure for 8 bets. The betting sequence itself comes from a book called "12 Ways to Beat Your Bookie" by Tony Stoffo (basically a book of martingale strats).
Now on its surface, this sounds like degeneracy 101. Pure gamblooooor stuff. Each strategy should be a long term net loser, but Danrules results were profitable over several seasons.
Maybe it's worth a backtest.
I grabbed some data for several NHL seasons. One tweak I added was to select the two best-priced road favourites (highest payoff while still being shorter than 2.00 decimal odds). If there were more than 2 with the same price, I randomly selected the 2.
I also changed the bet sequence amounts to pure martingale - i.e. doubling the amount every time rather than the multipliers recommended by Stoffo.
After that, it was time to run a backtest.
Result: In 3 seasons on NHL, the strategy appeared profitable. The return distribution is negatively skewed, showing small methodical series wins followed by blowout losses. Interestingly, even shuffling the bets up, it still appears to be a winning strategy.
Is it likely persist? Maybe, but I personally wouldn't bet this because the uncertainty around the blowouts means it's not for the feint of heart. It's also unclear to me what the edge is, other than perhaps betting that NHL games are more random than the market thinks.
I'm not even sure that this is really an example of Parrondo's paradox tbh, but it reminded me of the concept when I was thinking it over.
Either way, I hope you found this interesting. Thanks to
@neilgcurrie
for assistance with the backtest on this one.
/fin
MLB discussion (not original):
https://www.covers.com/forum/systems...stem-102418263
NHL discussion:
https://www.covers.com/forum/systems...stem-101980215
Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/Gingfacekillah/status/1635711305641529346
Reply With Quote