Start with exact evidence
A player, side and line should match a real supported production market before a probability is shown.
IS MY PARLAY GOOD?
Ask a better question: what evidence supports each leg?
No system can know a sports result in advance. A useful parlay check should show what supports the selection, what argues against it, how the model compares with the market and whether the evidence is strong enough to evaluate at all.
Separate model from market
The model estimate and market-implied probability answer different questions. Seeing both makes the comparison inspectable.
Look beyond one metric
Edge and EV matter only in context. Consistency, recent evidence and the opposing case help explain why the numbers look the way they do.
Keep uncertainty visible
When the evidence is missing or not validated, insufficient data is more useful than a confident-looking guess.
WHAT A GOOD CHECK LOOKS LIKE
Evidence, comparison, and a permanent record.
REPICOM evaluates supported legs individually. It can preserve the pregame model probability, market probability, edge, expected value and available consistency evidence. The system does not claim a reliable combined parlay probability unless dependence between the legs has been validated.
The final outcome is then kept with the original evaluation in the Prediction Ledger or public result record when applicable. That allows you to judge the process using what was actually known before the game instead of rewriting the reasoning afterward.
A PRACTICAL CHECKLIST
What to inspect before calling a parlay strong or weak.
Start by confirming that every supported leg matches the actual market you are considering. Then compare the model probability with the market probability and look at the size of the edge, not just its direction. Review expected value only alongside the underlying probability and price. If consistency evidence such as MCP or recent performance is available, use it as context rather than treating it as the same thing as wager probability.
Finally, read the opposing evidence. A useful pregame review should make the weak points visible too. When the evidence is incomplete, the correct conclusion can be insufficient data. That is a more reliable basis for a decision than a confident number created from information the production model did not validate.