Guide Are Correlated Bets in NFL Worth It?

[Betting Forum]

You bet a team to win and the under, figuring if they win it'll probably be a defensive game. Makes sense logically. Then you check the actual payout and realize the book priced it like you're getting minimal value for combining two related outcomes.

This guide is for bettors trying to understand when correlations create betting value and when they're just ways to pay more juice on outcomes that aren't actually independent.

Correlation in betting means two outcomes are related - if one happens, it makes the other more likely. Books know about correlations and they price them accordingly. The trap is thinking you're being clever by combining correlated bets when really you're just paying extra vig for the privilege of betting outcomes that were never independent to begin with.

Recommended USA sportsbooks: Bovada, Everygame, SportsBetting, BetOnline, Bookmaker

What Correlation Actually Means​

Two bets are correlated when the probability of one outcome affects the probability of the other. If Team A covers the spread, it makes the under more likely because blowouts tend to happen when one team dominates and controls clock. That's correlation.

Positive correlation means both outcomes become more likely together. Negative correlation means one outcome makes the other less likely. Independent outcomes have no correlation - one happening doesn't change the probability of the other at all.

Books price parlays assuming outcomes are independent. You're getting paid as if each leg has its separate probability and the parlay probability is just those multiplied together. But when outcomes are correlated, the actual probability of both hitting is different from the independent calculation, and usually the book has priced it in their favor.

The same-game parlay market is where this matters most now. Books offer parlays combining player props, team totals, and game outcomes from the same game. Everything is correlated to some degree because it's all happening in the same game, yet they're offering you parlay payouts. How is that possible? Because they've adjusted the odds on each leg to account for correlation, which means you're often getting worse value than betting each leg straight.

The Classic Trap - Favorite and Under​

This is the oldest correlation trap in football betting. Bet the favorite and the under together, reasoning that if the favorite wins big they'll control the game and the clock, keeping scoring down.

The logic seems sound. Favorites that dominate do tend to produce lower-scoring games because they're running the ball in the second half and milking clock. The problem is the books know this correlation exists and they've priced it in.

When you parlay favorite -7 and under 44, you're not actually getting independent odds multiplied together. The true probability of both hitting is higher than independent probabilities suggest because of correlation, which means the payout should be lower than a standard parlay payout. And it is - the book has already adjusted.

Where this really costs you is you're limiting your outs. If the favorite wins 31-20, you won the favorite leg but lost the under even though the favorite controlled the game. If it's 24-20, same thing. The correlation isn't as strong as bettors think - favorites can win comfortably and still go over, especially if they score quickly early.

The better approach is pick one side. If you think the favorite dominates, bet the favorite straight. If you think it goes under, bet under straight. Combining them costs you vig and limits the ways you can win.

Player Props and Team Performance​

Same-game parlays love to offer things like "quarterback over 275 yards AND his team to win." This feels correlated - if the QB throws for big yards, his team probably won, right?

Not as much as you think. Quarterbacks throw for big yardage in losses all the time, especially if they're playing from behind and throwing 45-50 times in desperation. Some of the biggest passing yard games come in losses where the QB was airing it out trying to catch up.

The correlation exists but it's weaker than the payout structure suggests. The book is offering you parlay odds on outcomes that are only moderately correlated, not strongly correlated. You're paying full parlay juice for a correlation that doesn't justify it.

The reverse is also true - quarterbacks can have mediocre yardage games in wins if the team ran the ball heavily or scored on defense and special teams. A 225-yard passing game in a 24-10 win is perfectly normal. The QB over and team win aren't as linked as they feel.

This pattern repeats across player props. Running back over rushing yards and team win sounds correlated but running backs post big yards in losses when the team is trying to control clock while trailing. Receiver overs and team wins feel linked but receivers can go over in losses if the team is throwing a lot.

The book is offering you these parlays because they're profitable for them, not because you're getting value from correlation. Be skeptical.

Touchdown Scorer and Team Total​

Betting a player to score a touchdown and their team to go over their team total seems logical. If the player scores, the team probably scored a lot, right?

The correlation is real but you're getting murdered on the odds. A touchdown is 6-7 points depending on whether they're going for two. For a team total to go over, they usually need 24-28+ points. One touchdown is a significant chunk of that but it's not determinative.

A player can score and the team stays under if the rest of the offense struggles. A player can not score and the team goes over if other players score instead or if they kick a bunch of field goals. The outcomes are correlated but not as tightly as the parlay payout assumes.

What's worse is the book adjusts the player TD odds when you parlay it with team total. They know the correlation exists so they price the TD scorer at shorter odds in the parlay than they would straight. You're paying twice - once for the correlation adjustment and once for the parlay juice.

If you like both bets independently, bet them separately. If you only like them together because of correlation, you're probably getting bad value on the combination.

Multiple Player Props From Same Team​

Same-game parlays let you combine things like "QB over passing yards, WR1 over receiving yards, WR2 over receiving yards" from the same team. This feels correlated - if the QB is throwing for a lot, his receivers are catching a lot.

This one actually has strong correlation and the books know it. The odds on each leg get adjusted significantly when you parlay them. The QB passing yards line might be 275 straight but effectively 290 when parlayed with receiver props. The receiver lines get juiced too.

The correlation is too obvious and the books have priced it efficiently. You're not finding value here, you're just betting on the team having a big passing game and paying extra juice for the privilege of splitting it into multiple props.

Better to just bet the QB over if you think they'll pass a lot, or bet the team total over if you think they'll score. Splitting it into multiple props costs you without adding value.

First Half vs Full Game Outcomes​

Betting something like "Team A first half -3.5 and full game -7" sounds correlated. If they're winning first half they'll probably win the game, so you're getting parlay odds on related outcomes.

The problem is first half results don't predict second half results as strongly as you'd think. Teams trailing at half often cover the second half spread because they adjust and the leading team gets conservative. A team can win first half and lose the game or win the game but not cover the full game spread.

The correlation is positive but weak. Books offering this parlay are happy to do so because they're getting parlay juice on outcomes that aren't strongly correlated enough to justify the odds reduction.

This shows up in live betting too. If you bet a team pre-game and they're winning at half, the live spread for the second half often favors the trailing team because of halftime adjustments and regression. Your pre-game bet and the second half spread aren't as correlated as they feel.

Alternative Spread Parlays​

Some books let you parlay alternative spreads on the same game. Like betting Team A -3.5 at better odds and Team A -7.5 at worse odds together in a parlay. Both can't lose but they can both win if Team A wins by 8+.

This is pure correlation tax. The outcomes are perfectly correlated - if the -7.5 hits, the -3.5 automatically hits. You're not betting two independent outcomes, you're betting on the margin of victory being 8+ with extra steps.

The payout reflects this. It's not a true parlay payout based on independent probabilities, it's a reduced payout that accounts for the correlation. In most cases you'd be better off just betting the -7.5 straight because the parlay isn't giving you enough extra value for locking in both legs.

The only time these make sense is if you're trying to middle - betting Team A -3.5 and Team B +7.5 together and hoping for a 4-7 point win where both hit. But even then you're paying extra vig for the privilege and the middle probability might not justify it.

Opposite Sides of Total in Same Game​

Books won't let you parlay a team total over with the game total under from the same game because the correlation is too obvious and too strong. If one team goes over their total significantly, the game total probably goes over too.

But they will let you parlay things that are more subtly correlated. Like Team A total over 24.5 and Team B total under 20.5 in the same game. These feel independent but they're not - if the game is high-scoring, both teams probably score more. If it's low-scoring, both probably score less.

The book has adjusted the odds on each leg to account for this correlation. You're not getting independent probabilities, you're getting correlated probabilities priced as if they're more independent than they are.

When you see these parlays offered, ask yourself - are these outcomes actually independent or just appearing independent? Most of the time they're correlated and you're paying for that correlation in the odds.

Weather Props and Totals​

In bad weather games, people like to parlay things like "under on total" and "under on QB passing yards" because weather affects passing which affects scoring. The correlation is obvious and real.

Too obvious. The book has priced this correlation perfectly. The under odds and the QB under odds are both adjusted knowing that weather creates correlation between them. You're not getting value from combining them, you're paying parlay juice on outcomes that move together.

Worse, the correlation isn't as strong as it feels. A game can go under because of defensive dominance while the QB still posts decent passing yards. Or the QB can throw for low yards but the team runs for a ton and the game goes over. Weather affects everything but not uniformly.

If you think weather tanks scoring, bet the under. If you think it specifically hurts passing, bet QB unders. Combining them costs juice without adding edge.

Division Game Trends and Parlays​

Division games have patterns - they tend to be closer, more defensive, more physical. Bettors love to parlay things like "underdog +7" and "under 44" in division games figuring both are more likely.

The correlation exists - division games do tend toward unders and tighter spreads. But everyone knows this, including the book. Division game totals are already set lower than non-division games on average. The underdog line is already adjusted for division game competitiveness.

When you parlay these outcomes, you're betting on patterns that are already priced into the individual lines. The book isn't giving you extra value for combining them because the correlation is known and priced.

You'd be better off finding a division game where you think the total is still too high even after the book adjusted for division trends, or where you think the underdog is better than their line suggests. Betting the actual edge beats parlaying known correlations.

Quarterback Rushing Yards and Pass Attempts​

Mobile quarterback over rushing yards and under pass attempts sounds correlated. If he's running a lot, he's probably not passing as much. The book offers this parlay.

The correlation is negative here - one going over makes the other more likely to go under. That should make the parlay less likely to hit than independent probabilities suggest. But the book is still offering parlay odds, which means they've adjusted both lines to account for the correlation.

The QB rushing over might be set at 45 yards straight but effectively 50 yards in the parlay. The pass attempts under might be 33 straight but effectively 31 in the parlay. You're getting worse lines on both legs to account for the correlation, which eats up any value from combining them.

This pattern shows up across negative correlations. When the book lets you parlay outcomes where one makes the other more likely, they've adjusted the lines on both sides. You're not outsmarting anyone.

When Correlation Actually Creates Value​

Correlation can create betting value but only in specific situations where the market hasn't fully priced it or where the correlation works in your favor structurally.

Middling opportunities are genuine correlation plays. You bet a spread early in the week, it moves, and you bet the other side. Now you have both sides at different numbers and you're hoping to middle. The outcomes are correlated - if one barely covers, the other might too - but you've created the position through line shopping rather than paying parlay juice.

Hedging is using correlation to reduce risk. You bet a future on a team to win the Super Bowl, they make it, and you bet their opponent in the game. The outcomes are negatively correlated but you're using that to guarantee profit or reduce downside. You're not paying parlay juice, you're paying to reduce variance.

Arbitrage across books uses correlation when different books price the same game differently. You bet one side at Book A and the other at Book B and lock in profit. The outcomes are perfectly negatively correlated but you've found mispricing rather than paying correlation tax.

The pattern in all these is you're creating the correlated position through market inefficiency or line shopping, not by accepting the book's parlay offering. When the book offers you a correlated parlay, they've priced it. When you create correlation positions yourself through shopping or timing, you might have edge.

Same-Game Parlay Algos Are Against You​

Books spend millions developing algorithms to price same-game parlays correctly. They know which props correlate with which outcomes, they know how to adjust odds for correlation, and they're doing it in real-time across thousands of prop combinations.

You're not beating that algorithm by clicking buttons on your betting app. The correlation you're thinking about - "QB over yards and team win makes sense!" - has been analyzed by the book's pricing model and they've adjusted accordingly.

The only way same-game parlays make sense is if you're betting for entertainment and you want the sweat of having multiple outcomes tied together. As an expected value play, they're almost always worse than betting the legs separately or picking the strongest leg and betting it straight.

Books push same-game parlays because they're profitable. The interface makes it easy to add legs, the payouts look attractive, and the correlation feels logical. But the house edge on same-game parlays is higher than straight bets in almost every case.

Independent Parlays Are Still Bad Value​

Even parlays with truly independent outcomes are negative expected value if you're betting into juice on both legs. Parlaying two -110 bets gives you worse value than betting them separately and reinvesting if the first wins.

The reason is compound juice. Each leg has juice built in. When you parlay them, the juice compounds. You're paying -110 on leg one and -110 on leg two, which is worse than paying -110 on leg one, then if it wins betting the profit at -110 on leg two.

This seems like a small difference but it compounds over many bets. Parlays are fun, they create entertainment value, and they let you shoot for bigger payouts with small stakes. But as an expectation-value strategy they're inferior to straight bets or round-robin approaches.

The only time parlays make mathematical sense is if you're betting into reduced juice or positive expected value on each leg. If you're betting +EV props at fair odds and combining them, the parlay can be +EV too. But standard parlays of -110 legs are juice traps.

Teasers and Correlation​

Teasers let you move spreads and totals in your favor by a set amount - typically 6 or 7 points in NFL - in exchange for requiring both legs to hit. They're essentially correlation plays on key numbers.

A standard NFL teaser is moving two spreads through 3 and 7, the most important key numbers. You take a -8 favorite to -2 and a -7.5 favorite to -1.5, crossing key numbers on both. The value comes from moving through high-probability landing zones.

This works when you're hitting key numbers. Teasers that move through 3 and 7 have mathematical value if priced at standard 6-point teaser odds. Teasers that don't hit key numbers - like moving a -1 to +5 - are just paying juice to get points you didn't need.

The correlation in teasers is that you're requiring both legs to hit, which means you need both teams to perform within your teased range. This creates correlation in variance - if favorites are getting blown out across the slate, your teaser probably loses both legs. If it's a chalky day, both might hit.

Books price teasers assuming some correlation in outcomes across games. When favorites are winning league-wide, teasers do better. When dogs are covering, teasers do worse. You're taking on systematic risk that all your legs are exposed to similar game script trends.

Prop Correlations Books Miss​

Occasionally there are prop correlations the market hasn't fully priced. These are rare and they get corrected quickly, but they're where actual edge exists.

Backup quarterback situations sometimes create mispriced props. If a backup comes in mid-game, his props for completions and attempts might be set assuming normal game script. But if the team is trailing, the backup will throw way more than normal. His over attempts might have value that isn't fully correlated with game flow props yet.

Weather changes between when lines open and kickoff sometimes create correlation opportunities. The total gets adjusted for weather but specific props don't adjust as much. QB pass attempts might stay the same even though heavy rain will obviously reduce passing volume. That's a correlation the market has mispriced temporarily.

Injury news late in the week can create prop correlations that haven't been fully priced. A wide receiver goes out, the tight end's target share should go up, but his prop might not have moved enough yet. The correlation between injury and prop adjustment exists but the market might be slow.

These edges are small and they close fast. Professional bettors and algorithms find them within minutes. By the time a recreational bettor sees them, they're probably gone. But they're the only real correlation edges that exist - market inefficiencies in pricing related outcomes, not parlays the book is offering you.

FAQ​

Are same-game parlays ever good value?
Almost never. The book has priced the correlation into each leg. You're paying parlay juice for outcomes that aren't independent, which means you're getting worse odds than the true probability suggests. Same-game parlays are entertainment products, not value plays.

What about if I find correlation the book missed?
If you genuinely find mispriced correlation - outcomes that are more correlated than the odds suggest - that's an edge. But the book has sophisticated pricing models specifically to avoid this. You're not finding these opportunities by casually combining props in the app.

Should I ever parlay bets?
For entertainment value, sure. For expected value, only if you're betting into positive expected value on each leg separately. Parlaying -110 bets compounds juice and reduces your edge. Straight bets or round robins are better strategies for serious betting.