I used to have the same argument fred!, but it is fundamentally flawed.

Magicians (and others) bots are operating in the same time frame as all other users. The stay at home IR players are betting on events that happened up to 4 or 5 seconds ago whilst others have placed bets on the events as they happened (less IR delay).

After some thought, I realise that the apparent edge in favour of backers IR must be illusionary. In theory, it should be the same for both sides. So how is this squared with the figures?

What I believe we are seeing is the effect of a larger, increasing spread which operates in the IR market.

The pre-market is volatile but nothing like that of the IR market, so the spread is fairly narrow. The increments (ticks) start at 0.1 and increase as the prices increase, not on a fixed % basis but on some kind of squared/log basis. Eg 0.01 on 1.01 is 1% increment, 1.0 on 20.0 is 5%.

On my figures, from a small study which I completed, a backer at BF SP/latest prices on all runners staking as per odds % would show an APPARENT loss of some 2.9%. This does not mean that layers are making a profit of 2.9% because they are laying on the other side at the spread odds. In fact, they too could be expected to make a similar APPARENT loss on stakes if a calculation is made on all the last lay prices.

In practice, they must both break-even before commission kicks in.

So how is this explained? Surely if a backer takes1.98 about an even chance then the layer must win. Thats true, but if we assume that half the time the backer bets first and takes the price of 1.98 and half the time the layer bets first and lays the price of 2.02, then they will both bet advantageously half the time and disadvanteously for the other half of the time. So net net, they breakeven.

What we looking at with Baby Js figures is the price layed for all runners, not backed. If we were to look at the backed prices, a similar loss would show.

But in reality neither is making a loss or profit as Ive explained.

The increasing apparent loss is demonstrating the much wider spread involved in IR prices than that in pre- markets, a fact which is perfectly understandable given the much greater volatility of IR.

So, whilst BJs figs might be taken as proof that some people are taking advantage, I dont think that is the case.

What remains true is that if you have an edge, the greater volatility provides opportunities for much greater value to be had and opportunities to trade out. But, of course, the risks are much greater.

I still believe that if you dont have an edge then dont play IR because you will lose your money much faster than in the pre-market.

I need to undertake a much bigger study to work out the cost of hedging at bigger price levels but I cant see me doing that sometime soon. Anybody done that?

Perhaps I am talking utter bolax so any views people?

Avon B

Probably both plus the likelihood that more people are playing IR having heard about the big profits. That makes it more competitive which in turn drives down averages.

The people who think there are big profits available are all waiting util the end of the race and trying to bet 1.1 or less on a 'certainty' thats virtually over the line. Presumably a big % of them come unstuck because there are other people with faster pics/at the track/or experts whove been doing it for years who beat them to it anyway.

I have often wondered at what point in the day people start thier 1.01 laying bots and the m.o. Persumably they are left running at the approximate time next day markets are opened to ensure being front of the queue.

One wonders if Betfair have actually considered being 'first dibs' laying the 1.01's. In theory no-one would be any the wiser.

When I used to run my in-running bot it made steady profits laying. When I tried to run a completly symmetrical bot that backed I found it lost money hand over fist. This supports the view that the layers are the fast pic guys while the backers are the ordinary punters with slow pics.

pumpkinslayerII 11 Jun 21:09

"When I used to run my in-running bot it made steady profits laying. When I tried to run a completly symmetrical bot that backed I found it lost money hand over fist. This supports the view that the layers are the fast pic guys while the backers are the ordinary punters with slow pics."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is fascinating because we have some contrary evidence now.

My findings suggested that layers might win at below 1.06 and increasingly lose at prices beyond that.

BJs figures were on a much larger sample and seemed to support that theory.

I then questioned whether this was really showing us a bias against laying, because theoretically, without any factors distorting the market (not true it seems) the situation should be the same for both layers and backers. They cant both make losses.

I reasoned this out as being the likelihood of BJs figures showing us the existence of a much wider spread between backers and layers prices as the prices increase reflecting the much greater volatility in the market where the time frame is tight, mistakes are easily made, panic hedging against loss is greater and scope for rational evaluation of the odds is miniscule. The IR market is much more open to the intuitive player who plays from gut feel than it is to the cool, calculating type of personality.

Now, pumpkinplayer is providing evidence that laying bots win and reciprocal backing bots lose.

I wonder if the laying bots profits were all down to the low odds layed (1.1)? Conversely, how did the backing bot do on high prices (100.0)?

Is it true that the fast pics players are mostly layers? Is this the experience of people like Koo and others who do this for a living?

Are slow pics players mostly backers? Is the reverse true? Are backers mostly slow pics users?

Its very clear that this market is wide open to distortion from players with a technical edge or from

I think the same would apply on many other sports inplay too.
The only lay money left up is money which is too slow to get out of the way and his hoovered by people who know they onto a winner.

Moral of the story is dont lay unless you have very uptodate info

I'm not a horse racing punter per se and just have the occasional punt on them now but on a separate issue at the last Breeders Cup meeting I noticed a few of the winners were backed nowhere near (and I mean nowhere near) 1.01 in running. Everybody betting including Betfair seemed to be relying on the same pictures and what a difference it made to the prices matched. It highlighted to me the huge time disadvantage some foolish punters are willing to bet against.

pumpkin/slayer

Seems to support the theory that many backers want to back what looks like the winner& are prepared to put in very low prices to ensure acceptance and consequently prices drop too rapidly and are way out of line with real chances. Misjudgement/greed as well as pic speed?

Sandown if I get time I'll dig out the database and run it up to 1000 for you but as far as I remember the figures just got worse for the layers.

Remember the data I used was betfairs data showing matched bets only so whilst people may kick back bets into the market they'd be more likely to go unmatched if they then went onto to win.

I auto downloaded the data to see if there was any edge in firing off the 1.01's etc into the market. And whilst it showed me, as expected, there was a slight edge at the bottom of market due to people overreacting to profit from that edge is another thing. I set up a program to lay at 1.03 and whilst it had some success it really wasn't worth the effort as the market is usually filled with those prices as soon as they're put on the site and I was checking new markets and firing the bets probably every 20 seconds or so.

Koo

My figures were based on lowest price matched IR as were BJ's I would guess. Ideally, would like to see BJ's figures for reasonable sums matched say £500, £1000. Would it change things though?

Yep just meant that overall any one taking those prices would win whereas laying would lose except for the lower odds of 1.05, but the amounts at those prices were very low and only the quickest into the market would profit 1.05 and lower.

Koo

The breakeven point seems to be around 1.06. Below that its in layers favour, bigger than that its in backers favour.

But, as I've said earlier, I think that this reflects the spreads in as much as they are much wider than in the pre-market. Only if a backer/'layer is taking the wrong end of the spread 100% of the time will these findings hold.

Assuming that the average player gets the best end of the spread 50% of the time and wrong 50% of the time then there would be no difference between backing/laying with the possible exception of the 1.01 and 1.02 prices.

BJ

And how do you explain pumpkin's bots?

u would need to work out a new table to give the backers side backing at certain odd and take off the losers

but then u run into liquiidty issues again as youd have to accept that they get full matched at al one price they asked for.


its getting the right stats to see where and why things happen

what the figures show is if you put in keep lays at say 1.2 for every horse in every race you will make a loss overall as they'll only get taken when their chance is better than that.

Whats all this go to do with the folly of playing in running please

yes only if they get matched though, i'd imagine those at 1.01 where you'll be in a queue wouldn't always get matched when they get beat. Interesting to see the difference between 1.99 and 2.