I'll take what you said constructively as long as you do the same, bud!
- The Mas/Cerrone example I used was a bad example. I'll switch up some fights so I have more possibilities. Ex. Cerrone + Pena in one and Mas + Shev in another. I only do this on multi leg parlays - 5 legs or more. Once in a while I will do opposite sides for one fight - I know one of them will lose but one of them will win. I understand I'm paying a little juice here.. Similar to how many others hedge/buy out of single fights. However, I may only add the 2nd fighter after odds have changed in my favor.
- I didn't say I randomly throw in fights in not sure about. I do think being a winning parlay bettor needs to have underdogs though. I WILL throw an UD I wasn't sure about into some parlays. I don't bet every fight. If I see value on an UD I will throw it into some legs of my parlays.
- like I said I have done very well with this method. My single bets pay for my parlays + some profit. I use parlays as a way to exponentially better my good events. I don't stake a lot on any event and have won a lot.
- Again, you are dismissing the hedge value of parlays. Everything is an equation. Parlay hedging can guarantee a win vs. some hedges I see here on single bets, which just pay juice a reduce risk/exposure.
I'm a consultant for one of the worlds biggest banks. I'm not an idiot and understand the numbers. I also see how some despise the way I do it it. It works for me though, Bud.