Is it better to bet on a multiple of events each with individually low odds, or a single event?

Question

..a single event with high odds.

betting on three favorites all to win, or one outsider.

total odds both times are equal.

in theory i guess it makes no difference, but dont know if it works out that way in practice

Answer 1

In theory it makes a difference.  In  practice also.

If the probability of the outcomes are the same for each of the events, you can keep the same expected average return but reduce the variance by betting on several events.  The more events, the smaller the variance.  

Same alpha, smaller sigma.

A smaller variance is not to the player's advantage.  Instead of a single chance to either win or lose, by reducing the variance you effectively reduce the possibility of winning and increase the likelihood of a small, but predictable loss.

If you are interested in gaming theory you need to study statistical analysis.

Answer 2

I don't see how it is necessarily fun to always play the game with the absolutely lowest expected value. Some video poker games (especially if the progressive jackpot gets high enough) actually can be played with a slight player advantage. But everything is calculated on hitting that "royal flush".

  In a simple line bet in craps, if you take enough odds, there is a very low house edge, but there is no extreme outsiders. For example, the Main Street Casino permits 20X odds on a $5 minimum. It seems to be more fun than playing a video poker machine with a progressive payout that gives a positive player edge based on a high royal flush payout.

Answer 3

I prefer single bets, but taking outsiders, this is what makes me profit, of course I choose the outsiders vey carefully.

I would go with outsider bet, there is always time for surprises.