General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
There are many threads on this topic, many from people who have a vested interest in the subject because they are doing very nicely. I have never seen any figures published on the wisdom of playing in this market, so I decided to check it out for myself.
The results indicate that the edge against the average player is huge and I can see why those who have an edge want to keep the status quo. For anyone else, dont bother except if you want to have some sort of hedge against the unexpected happening at very small odds. I would be really interested to see a more detailed study from anyone else to see whether my findings are confirmed.
I took my data from Fracsoft and it was for horseracing only.
I recorded the number of losers at very price levels comparing expected against actual.
If there was no distortion in the market I would expect, for example , to find 1 loser for every winner at a price of 2.0. That is for every 2 horses which touch 2.0 in-running, 1 would go on to win and 1 lose.
I then expressed the returns in terms of a level stakes lay at each price. Here are my findings expressed as a % return on stakes as a layer.
Odds NP%
1.01 0.2
1.02 2.9
1.03 3.1
1.04 3.3
1.05 2.3
1.06 1.3
1.08 (0.7)
1.1 (1.5)
1.15 (4.0)
1.2 (6.6)
1.25 (10.4)
1.33 (2.5)
1.5 (9.8)
1.75 (15.2)
2 (18.3)
2.5 (48.8)
3 (84.1)
The findings show that as the price gets bigger after 1.06, so the % loss increases dramatically. At 3.0 the loss was 84%. In other words, anyone putting up a lay at 3.0 would find that those backing (presumably with whatever edge they have) are cleaning up.
Only at 1.06 and less does it seem as though there is a small edge in favour of the layer. Presumably, at this level backers are sweeping up all the prices and if by chance something does happen ( disqualification, beat on the line, saddle slip etc etc) they cannot predct it occurring.
I wonder why BF has never published the evidence? Could it be that it might kill their IR markets at least on horse-racing?
My sample was not huge (only 82 races) but the findings were so clear and as I am not an IR player I had no interest.
My advice to anyone contemplating getting into this, if they dont have an edge, is DONT.
The results indicate that the edge against the average player is huge and I can see why those who have an edge want to keep the status quo. For anyone else, dont bother except if you want to have some sort of hedge against the unexpected happening at very small odds. I would be really interested to see a more detailed study from anyone else to see whether my findings are confirmed.
I took my data from Fracsoft and it was for horseracing only.
I recorded the number of losers at very price levels comparing expected against actual.
If there was no distortion in the market I would expect, for example , to find 1 loser for every winner at a price of 2.0. That is for every 2 horses which touch 2.0 in-running, 1 would go on to win and 1 lose.
I then expressed the returns in terms of a level stakes lay at each price. Here are my findings expressed as a % return on stakes as a layer.
Odds NP%
1.01 0.2
1.02 2.9
1.03 3.1
1.04 3.3
1.05 2.3
1.06 1.3
1.08 (0.7)
1.1 (1.5)
1.15 (4.0)
1.2 (6.6)
1.25 (10.4)
1.33 (2.5)
1.5 (9.8)
1.75 (15.2)
2 (18.3)
2.5 (48.8)
3 (84.1)
The findings show that as the price gets bigger after 1.06, so the % loss increases dramatically. At 3.0 the loss was 84%. In other words, anyone putting up a lay at 3.0 would find that those backing (presumably with whatever edge they have) are cleaning up.
Only at 1.06 and less does it seem as though there is a small edge in favour of the layer. Presumably, at this level backers are sweeping up all the prices and if by chance something does happen ( disqualification, beat on the line, saddle slip etc etc) they cannot predct it occurring.
I wonder why BF has never published the evidence? Could it be that it might kill their IR markets at least on horse-racing?
My sample was not huge (only 82 races) but the findings were so clear and as I am not an IR player I had no interest.
My advice to anyone contemplating getting into this, if they dont have an edge, is DONT.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 153
|
By:
I recorded the number of losers at SEVERAL price levels comparing expected against actua
|
|
By:
So all in running winners are backers?
|
|
By:
No, of course not.
|
|
By:
You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble for someone with no interest. Although 82 races is hardly exhaustive.
In other words, anyone putting up a lay at 3.0 would find that those backing (presumably with whatever edge they have) are cleaning up. ? |
|
By:
Ive read it twice and dont understand. Anyone who does understand it will be too shrewd to lose money IR so problem solved.
|
|
By:
Sandown, your posts are always worth reading but drawing any conclusions on 82 races(13 meetings?) is staggering imho
|
|
By:
Sandown - surely there is a fundamental error in your analysis in that it assumes that a layer (or backer) can get on at the prices? For instance - if you try to lay all horses at 1.01/1.02, you will almost certainly get matched on the winners, but will be much less likely to get matched on the losers. Likewise, backers at 3.0 are not 'cleaning up', because although many may try to back a 3.0 shot that looks like winning (in-running) only a small number of backers (probably 1) will get on in any given instance.
|
|
By:
...in the latter case, the attempting backer WILL get matched if the horses loses, but is much less likely to if the horse wins.
|
|
By:
heynoodles
It wasn't too much trouble, but I agree that 82 races is by no means conclusive. On re-reading, I see I didn't explain myself well. The figures were constructed from my angle of hedging in-running against a back bet. If you back a horse (at whatever price) and then lay it at 1.01 IR then you are expecting on average that 1 in 100 will lose. If that is the case, then you will breakeven on the insurance part. If 2 in 100 lose, then you will be ahead on the insurance. That is what the figures demonstrate. You can be ahead if hedging at 1.06 and below but above that you will lose money on the hedging. Apologies for not explaining that crucial element. |
|
By:
ewood
Agreed that the sample is too small to be sound which is why I have asked fif other have data that they are willing to share. Nevertheless, the increasing loss by price range looks significant. |
|
By:
Sandown - same comment applies to your 11:20 post. Your analysis only works if your bets go to the front of the queue - but, of course, they go to the back. There's several grand up to lay all horses at 1.01 hours before the race takes place. All that money will be in front of your 1.01 lay. On most 1.01 losers, you will not get matched.
|
|
By:
ged
I agree that if a horse looks like winning then it is hard to get on at any price which is why as the price gets lower presumably the less good IR players have to put up with a decreasing profit margin. As for the 1.06 and below prices, as a backer you would presumabbly put up 1.01 and hope that you get the best prices going. As `a layer, (hedging) I have found that my own results confirm that I am well ahead on 1.02 and 1.01. In other words, when I have hedged a bet I have found that I have been saved by the hedge bet much more frequently than I would expect by chance alone.Only rarely did I find that I didn't get matched despite the price showing as being taken. I guess that at those prices in the last nano-seconds of a race, no-one is discriminating. |
|
By:
That makes a bit more sense, you are saying that if you put a hedging lay in its much more likely to get matched if the horse wins than loses (compared to the statistical chance of a 3.0 shot)?
Ged's point about the q also seems valid but anecdotally I would have said that many horses go a lot lower IR than they should due to poor liquidity. |
|
By:
ged
Also depends on the amounts involved. The more money in play the better.As I say, I have rarely been disappointed . If the price is reached, then I have been matched nearly always.Always worth looking at the step pricesof course and putting up +0.01 if needed to ensure the best chance of getting the inssurance taken. |
|
By:
heynoodles
If the horse wins then it gets matched, doesn't it whatever the price? So, if I put a lay up IR of 3.0 to hedge a bet then on 82 races I would expect 164 losers for the 82 winners if there was no bias. There were only 95 losers which touched 3.0. Simarly, at 2.0 on 82 races I would expect to find 82 losers at 2.0. There were 67. |
|
By:
Sandown 10 Jun 10:48
as I am not an IR player I had no interest. I'll take that with a huge pinch of salt if you don't mind....... |
|
By:
Sandown - yes, the horse gets matched if it wins - meaning the layer will get matched, but the backer might not. So yes, in your last examples, the fixed-price layer will lose, but the fixed-price backer (at the same price) will not necessarily win.
Restricting the discussion for a moment to laying at 1.01 - what you are saying would only hold true if 1.01 losers were completely matched in the great majority of cases, and partially matched in the minority of cases. I do not have figures to prove/deny the truth one way or the other, but personally, I would be very surprised if it is true. If it were, laying at 1.01 would be very easy and profitable - and it isn't. Do you actually record ALL your 1.01 lays, both successful and otherwise? |
|
By:
What I am saying, I guess, is that the people playing IR, for whatever reason, are very good at what they do. The only area where they make mistakes is right at the finish and this can only be because as a group, they get so anxious to get whatever they can, that they take 1.01 to scoop all the money up there.
Of course, anyone who bets only when the horses have crossed the line will have a better record but they still have to worry about disqualifications! |
|
By:
Sandown, I used to run a bot IR in the win market right up until the finish. It used to lay and make small profits by putting money in the market and waiting for it to be taken. It still breaks even now when I try it to see if it's working again. If the edges you report really were that big it would lose heavily and just suspect your figures are just a random blip.
|
|
By:
Amanda
I only hedge IR for backs that I have made. That's where my interest lies. Ged I believe that Betfair published some information on this sometime ago and if my memory serves me correctly that showed that 1.01 layers were indeed profitable. I don't know about 1.02 , 1.03 et al. |
|
By:
I have data from 5700 races that would disagree with this, but can't expand much further for obvious reasons.
|
|
By:
Sandown - it showed nothing of the sort. The whole point is about getting on. You'll find it very easy to lay 1.01 winners, and back 1000 losers, but doing the opposite is far more difficult, and no analysis of figures can show the profit/loss of fixed-price laying/backing IR, UNLESS you can guarantee your bet will always be at the front of the queue, which of course you can't.
|
|
By:
slayer
You could be right or it may be as ged has pointed out, in reality the sums cannot be matched at the lowest prices shown for each loser. Nevertheless, it is game with too many sharks swimming around for poor little defenceless fish like me to want to swim in that particular ocean. |
|
By:
Sharks often bite lumps out of each other in a feeding frenzy, which is how the little fish, or the shark-baiters, can win. Good luck Sandown.
|
|
By:
ged
I don't disagree that what really matters is what you get on. owls Why can't you illuminate? You don't have to give away info that gives you an edge. Enlighten us, please. |
|
By:
So you are drawing all these conclusions from 83 races Sandown, i am sorry buts that's ludicrous!
So, if I put a lay up IR of 3.0 to hedge a bet then on 82 races I would expect 164 losers for the 82 winners if there was no bias. There were only 95 losers which touched 3.0. So I assume in all the 83 races you tested the favourite started above 3.0 did it, otherwise what you are saying here makes no sense. The only way to look at this properly is to look at actual matched prices, I would very much doubt that matched amounts at 3.0 the backers are much better off than layers, if anything I would think layers would be doing better. With regards to just hedging, then it would depend greatly on the types of races, hedging in flat races would be far less profitable than hedging in jumps. |
|
By:
If you count every horse that traded at x price Sandown you will always lay 1 winner per race. This does not have to be the case, laying a second horse in a race while effective in terms of negating commission is a much tougher hill to climb.
|
|
By:
baconandeggs
The anaysis was done on matched price. 82 winners 425 losers at up to 3.0. The SP or favourite position not a factor. If a horse touches a price then that is the markets estmate of its chance at that point. So, a 2.0 chance Ir should win 50% of the time. Agreed that 82 races is nothing but sometimes the pattern can be clear. If you see 10 winners in a row when you are expecting only one then there are reasonable grounds for thinking that something is afoot - enougth to establish a hypothesis if not to disprove it. |
|
By:
owls
For every winner (82 in total) the number of losers which touched these were prices were as follows. As the little boy said to the little girl, (or vice versa) : I'm showing you mine, why not show me yours? Price Actual Exp Diff 1.01 1 1 0 1.02 4 2 2 1.03 5 2 3 1.04 6 3 3 1.05 6 4 2 1.06 6 5 1 1.08 6 7 (1) 1.1 7 8 (1) 1.15 9 12 (3) 1.2 11 16 (5) 1.25 12 21 (9) 1.33 25 27 (2) 1.5 33 41 (8) 1.75 49 62 (13) 2 67 82 (15) 2.5 83 123 (40) 3 95 164 (69) |
|
By:
I would be very interested to see what set of figures would be generated from terrestrial TV races only.
My guess would be that it would bring things alot closer to the 'expected' mark. |
|
By:
Sandown, of the small sample of races you have looked at, how many were at ATR covered tracks?? and how many were Flat and National Hunt???
|
|
By:
All I know is evenings and Saturdays, there are people out there that really should not be backing in-running ;)
|
|
By:
ewood
All RUK (& mostly terrestial) except for Ascot. Cheltenham,Sandown, Newbury,Good, Ascot, Salisbury, Newmarket |
|
By:
The 82 were mainly terrestrial sandown?
|
|
By:
I'm sorry Sandown i just can't elude to this without rendering a lot of hard work pointless. You really do need a much greater sample, 500+ i would suggest.
|
|
By:
The problem is Sandown from what I can see is you are not looking at actual matched prices.
You have an expected number of losers at each price for every race, so for the 82 races you say you expect 164 losers at 3.0, why??? If you have a race where the favourite starts at 2.0 and goes on to win the race without trading above this price and no other horse trades at 3.0 you would calculate that 0 losers traded at 3.0 when you expected 2 losers?? That would make no sense, like I said before the only way to calculate would be to look at actual matched prices. |
|
By:
baconeggs
3.0 = 33% of winning. Or 164 losers against 82 winners. Irrespective of price at off, the IR price at any given point is the LATEST market price taken all information into account. If a 2.0 fav is 3.0 halfway in race, that is the markets view. If a 10.0 shot reaches 3.0 that is the markets estimate. The SP is irrelevent. Either case you would expect 1 in 3 to win. |
|
By:
I re-iterate, these were lowest MATCHED prices.
|
|
By:
owls
OK I understand. But can't you say SOMETHING that might HINT at what you have found? |