Round Robin vs. Normal Accumulator

[ofcourseitwas]

If you believed you had a working system with an advantage on the bookies' odds, I have heard that you can multiply that advantage using an accumulator. With that said, if you wanted to bet doubles and had 6 selections to choose from in total, would it be more to your advantage to bet 3 linear doubles or use a Round Robin where it bets every possible permutation? (in this case, 15 bets)

[FleetFanatic]

Re: Round Robin vs. Normal Accumulator Depends if they all win or not, and at what odds.

[Wise Guy]

Re: Round Robin vs. Normal Accumulator You will limit your staking ability with 15 doubles from 6 selections. For example if your desired stake was 10 quid you are betting 30 quid on 3 linear doubles versus 150 on the round robin. The odds of your selections will also have a baring on your profitability so its hard to make many calls in the absence of other info. Imagine a scenario where all 6 selections are evens. The maximum return is 4 times your total stake no matter which path you choose but your stake is also 5 times the size if you choose round robin. As a result the rewards are bigger if you hit 6/6 in the round robin. You need 4/6 to be in profit with 3/6 resulting in a 20% loss. You could strike 3/6 with the linear system and have matched them one winner to one loser and win nothing. I hope its ok to post this ( :spankif its not) but calculators such as below can help you work out the permutations and liabilities of one idea over another. http://www.ladbrokes.com/betCalculator/football/en/footballCalculator.html Good luck!!

[ofcourseitwas]

Re: Round Robin vs. Normal Accumulator thanks Wise Guy, this was what i needed. turns out doing a round robin for me produces the same yield as level stakes while a simple 2x acca nearly doubles the yield.