Let say you lay at 4.0 and the odds are true, ie the market is correctly priced - just the sake of our argument.
Chance of making 20 winning lays in a row 0.75^^20 = 0.003 or 0.3%
Oh, and if the market is priced perfectly, you'll win some and lose some, but on each win, say goodbye to 5%. Eventually, Betfair will have your entire bankroll, and that's just assuming the market is flat.
Perhaps this is not getting through. What we need is mugsgame to make the message a little more straightforward for you. I'm sure he'll be along shortly.
£25 a day - A beginner's journey
The reason lays are so dangerous is that the bets will win quite often, so newbies will often be able to fool themselves for quite some time. Especially, if you are only taking a couple of bets per day.007 wrote:.. just wondering, how long will you give me (approx) before the market talks.. a week? two? four? Will I see it into the New Year? Remember I'm brand new to laying horses - 19 days in.
My guess is, if you are only taking a couple of bets per day, you will do OK for a couple of months, then suddenly, in a month or two from now you will step on the proverbial land mine, get 3 or 4 bad days in row where all your lays come in and lose most of your bank.
to75ne wrote:i assume you know form and i have no doubt you are well capable of getting a liability equivalent to a price below sp (industry).mugsgame wrote:I lay horses and win
Just saying.......
Of course I know form. I also know what the value price is that I want to get involved. Think some get confused with their "one size fits all strategies" where they apply the bet to everything. Lay favs? The "lets lay em all or it can't work" merchants.
I back horses too
Just saying..................
quite possible to trade a price with the intention of obtaining an equivalent liability lower than sp (value), then straight lay. you will of cause need to know some form, have some sort of rating, ie as mr mug states what you deem to be a value price.Alpha322 wrote:Thats what i thought been thee done it now am cup of green teagazuty wrote:Why are we having this discussion. Strategies that are NOT designed to get to an all green position are called gambling.
no greening up, so is the above trading or gambling?
(likewise the opposite to back)
Any profitable trader could probably make money from laying or backing horses, purely from getting value / beating s.p, even without knowing anything about form .
and vice versa a layer would probably make money trading.
you just need an edge, once you have one it can be applied as you like
.
for example if you scalped one tick at 11.00 with 100-00, you could then lay that horse for 100-00 liability at odds under i.s.p.
and vice versa a layer would probably make money trading.
you just need an edge, once you have one it can be applied as you like
.for example if you scalped one tick at 11.00 with 100-00, you could then lay that horse for 100-00 liability at odds under i.s.p.
OK if you have an edge, not much point in straight backing and laying surely...you can put more money through with less risk by trading (you can put 2-3 times as much on trading rather than punting), reduce risk and reduce commissions.
OK add mugsgame to the list of winning punters. Of course, no need to mention Peter...he could simply throw pins in the dark at names and still win
OK add mugsgame to the list of winning punters. Of course, no need to mention Peter...he could simply throw pins in the dark at names and still win
You might want to have a play with the spreadsheet I've put together (attached), which simulates your strategy, ie blindly laying horses below 4.0.
It assumes that your liability per lay is £100.
If you re-run the spreadsheet a few times, you'll see that how long it takes you to reach the point of ruination depends on randomness.
Jeff
It assumes that your liability per lay is £100.
If you re-run the spreadsheet a few times, you'll see that how long it takes you to reach the point of ruination depends on randomness.
Jeff
007 wrote:.. just wondering, how long will you give me (approx) before the market talks.. a week? two? four?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Ferru123 wrote:You might want to have a play with the spreadsheet I've put together (attached), which simulates your strategy, ie blindly laying horses below 4.0.
It assumes that your liability per lay is £100.
If you re-run the spreadsheet a few times, you'll see that how long it takes you to reach the point of ruination depends on randomness.
Jeff
007 wrote:.. just wondering, how long will you give me (approx) before the market talks.. a week? two? four?
Why would anyone want to blindly do anything? No wonder there are so many losers on Betfair
Might be thick but your spreadsheet doesn't make a lot of sense to me ?!Ferru123 wrote:You might want to have a play with the spreadsheet I've put together (attached), which simulates your strategy, ie blindly laying horses below 4.0.
It shows laying for £100 stake and you say that if the horse wins the loss is £100 and if the horse loses the profit is <some obscure formula not directly using the odds>.
As I understand (?!) laying, if you lay for £100 stake and the horse wins then you lose ((odds - 1) * £100) eg odds of 2.50 would give a loss of £150. If the horse loses (which is what the lay bet says will happen) then you profit by £100.
That is the opposite (and more) to your spreadsheet.
Given what I have said is correct, that should have some impact on your calculations ?
-
JollyGreen
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:06 am
I may be missing something here but what exactly can anyone hope to achieve by backing or laying horses blindly? If the market is efficient as we believe it to be then you can only end up losing with the commission and charges. For example if you laid each horse at 4.0 then over time in an efficient market you will have equal winners and losers but charges will put you behind the 8 ball.
If however you can find a horse priced at 3.9 when it should be 4.0 you will find a small profit. Today at Leicester was one such occasion after Richard Hughes rode a treble. When he was on Rigoletto the horse opened at around 5.50 when in reality it was a 7/1-8/1 shot all day long. He then rode Model Pupil and once again he was underpriced this time helped because the horse runs in the Abdulla silks and is bred in the purple. Because money was now flowing in for the supposedly unbeatable Hughes the price collapsed from around 2.0 to ~1.84 which was plain ridiculous. The horse was touched off at Chester in a poor renewal of the Chester Vase run in an ordinary time but punters think "Derby trial" top horse, must win, bloke down the pub told me this is a cert. Even Chapman on ATR was gushing about it basically saying he only had to go down and come back to win. What he should've been asking was "why has this horse not run since May?" Did he ask that..did he **** it was the usual guff and only AFTER the race did he mention the layoff and suggest perhaps he'd had an injury. Now I was happy to lay it and even IF it had won I would not have been unhappy because long term I know I will make money laying a horse at odds on when in reality it should've been a minimum 7/4 shot and probably nearer 2/1 if I'm honest. He would need to be a good horse and near 100% fit to return after such a lengthy lay off and win in the soft ground.....which ultimately he wasn't.
I am not advocating laying blind, I am suggesting you look at the form in depth a la mugsgame and many others and choose your horses carefully. There are opportunies every day but you have to put in the spade work....or have a misspent youth like me
If however you can find a horse priced at 3.9 when it should be 4.0 you will find a small profit. Today at Leicester was one such occasion after Richard Hughes rode a treble. When he was on Rigoletto the horse opened at around 5.50 when in reality it was a 7/1-8/1 shot all day long. He then rode Model Pupil and once again he was underpriced this time helped because the horse runs in the Abdulla silks and is bred in the purple. Because money was now flowing in for the supposedly unbeatable Hughes the price collapsed from around 2.0 to ~1.84
which was plain ridiculous. The horse was touched off at Chester in a poor renewal of the Chester Vase run in an ordinary time but punters think "Derby trial" top horse, must win, bloke down the pub told me this is a cert. Even Chapman on ATR was gushing about it basically saying he only had to go down and come back to win. What he should've been asking was "why has this horse not run since May?" Did he ask that..did he **** it was the usual guff and only AFTER the race did he mention the layoff and suggest perhaps he'd had an injury. Now I was happy to lay it and even IF it had won I would not have been unhappy because long term I know I will make money laying a horse at odds on when in reality it should've been a minimum 7/4 shot and probably nearer 2/1 if I'm honest. He would need to be a good horse and near 100% fit to return after such a lengthy lay off and win in the soft ground.....which ultimately he wasn't.I am not advocating laying blind, I am suggesting you look at the form in depth a la mugsgame and many others and choose your horses carefully. There are opportunies every day but you have to put in the spade work....or have a misspent youth like me