And I don't bet anymore.

Well played me.

After timing here but was rather pleasantly surprised to be able to get on Pak around 2.1. They've managed the chase, such as it is, well. Doesn't make up for the amount I lost last game but then it's been a very good weekend otherwise.

Must admit a bit ill mannered of me I'll post reasons why tomorrow.

pecker
It was very rude of me to call something bollocks without at least offering an explanation so here goes.

In your example you used laying £50 @ 1.86 to give £43 and then backing £43 at 2.14 to give £49.02. So you would be 98p better off laying.

The implied probability (1/odds) for odds of 1.86 is 0.5376. The closest to make a round book on the lay side is 2.16 (not 2.14 as given by you) with an implied probability of 0.4630. Using these figures lay £50 at 1.86 to give £43 (as before) but now backing £43 at 2.16 gives £49.88. So you are still better off by 12p laying than backing. Which supports your argument.

If we now change the odds slightly to 1.85 which is an implied probability of 0.5405 then the required back odds are 2.18 with an implied probability of 0.4587. Now we get lay £50 at 1.85 equals £42.50 and back £42.50 at 2.18 which is £50.15. So we would be 15p better of by backing. Which goes against your argument.

So it appears, theoretically, sometimes we would be better off laying and some times better off backing.

pecker thanks for reply I find it quite interesting and has got me thinking (which is unusual!).

I'm struggling to understand the relevance of 1.2 500/100 and 1.21 500/105. In first back odds should be 6 which gives a 100% book and no difference whether backing or laying. In the second the question is what are the correct back odds 5.7 or 5.8; one favours the layer the other favours the backer (5.8 is slightly closer to a 100% book so would favour the backer).

I fail to see how a bot can be in front of me if I'm the first one to put a price up or put a bet on, say, the second best odds available.

£2 for information was a bit tongue in cheek but I do "frequently fill the gap" with a £2 bet. Pre-match I've observed that frequently there's a stand-off between backers and layers. I may be trying to decide whether the odds will go up or down before placing a bet or be trying to get slightly better odds. A £2 bet, daft as it sounds, often sparks the market into life. Again frequently the backing or laying side will take the bet and there's no longer a gap. Sometimes some bastard will just take the £2 though and I'm non the wiser. Not a very good explanation I know what I mean but that's not much use to anyone else.

In-play works much the same but obviously much quicker plus I'm sometimes pissed off that somebody will be profiting by backing and laying either side of the gap and hope my £2 pisses them off - maybe unlikely (especially if a bot) but for £2 which may win or lose gives me pleasure.

I don't mind bots doing their stuff. If there are cricket bots that can accurately calculate the correct odds either pre-match or in-play I'd be very surprised.