|
By:
heynoodles
If you don't know what your doing then you are going to lose your money faster than in any other market. If you do know what you are doing then I guess you will make money faster. |
|
By:
the folly is people blindly laying bets off in-running. It's not really evidence to say you can't win with normal pics though
|
|
By:
Sandown, I've no explanation for pumpkins bot, it may have been well programmed to fire a certain points/races or been first in the queue at the lower odds.
All I took from the stats were that the in running players had a major edge that meant there was no point in me blindly backing or laying into the in running markets at any price point as overall my winning backs wouldn't be matched whereas my losing lays would be. If you also think of the usual spreads (%'s books) in running that's quite an edge to overcome. I think they just confirm what you'd expect anyway that there aren't an easy shortcuts to winning on here despite the numerous 1.01 losing threads. In running is never going to be a level playing field as people are reacting to things happening at the time obviously the quicker/good players are better at cancelling their losing backs and taking any winning available odds which doesn't take a genius to work out. Whether you want to attribute the bias to in running players being more able to read the market more efficiently or having faster feeds is up to you . |
|
By:
Stevie G
The laying off blindly bit is what interests me.Its what it costs me that I want to know. Take the 1.98 to 2.0 figs which show a 10.8%loss for the layer. Say I back at 10.0 and put up a keep lay of 2.0 with the intention of greening up equally. To a £10 stake I would get back £50 for a profit of £40 win or lose. The 10.8% loss means that I am effectively greening up at 2.216 which means that I will get back LT £45.12. So the cost of hedging is £5 less change or 10% of my profit. That might be acceptable to me.Or it might not. Depends on my attitude to risk. |
|
By:
Guys one to throw into the mix, have you tried running the analysis by picture provider? It would be interesting to see the effect of atr/ ruk / terestrial broadcasts have on the figures, if any.
|
|
By:
I had considered that muqbil but thats more one for magician to get his teeth into :) I couldn't be bothered to go through the hassle of findng out which courses are which.
One of the problems is betfairs data is limited but for your purposes Sandown it does show the BSP which you can use as a rough guide as to the price you took then see if there's any edge in laying off at lower prices. I did run a few queries on that to see if there was an point and as you'd expect there isn't unless you want to throw away money |
|
By:
BJ
It may be throwing away money to blindly layoff but it can be important to reduce the variance. What I'd like to know is how much greater the loss becomes. My figs suggest that it gets a lot more costly. When you have the opportunity I'd love to see your figures for 3.0, 4.0,5.0....10.0. |
|
By:
If you're laying in running at a certain price (say a keep lay) imo what you are doing is passing the risk on to somebody else. On occaision I am willing to pay a small price for this. Also, at times it can be justified as value play dependent on the variables in individual cases. Try the test on Towcester and Fontwell bumpers.
Obviously you wouldn't expect a flat-rate keep lay to show a profit over the long term apart from at the minimal money buyer prices. That is intuitive, imo. There is commission to be factored into the maths, too. |
|
By:
There is a counter argument to the 'laying off inrunning is bad for one's wealth' statement. If you can identify horses that travel well but never win, lead but never win, there is money to be made, although it's getting tougher.
|
|
By:
most of those figures show around a 10% loss so of course if you a put a bit thought into the ones you want to lay off then no doubt you could make it profitable.
Personally i think even with a level playing field those figures would probably be quite similar if a little less |
|
By:
Yes the feed speed is a completely different argument. An analysis would need to be conducted with the same player with and without the advantage over a period of time.
|
|
By:
Stevie Gerrard 12 Jun 13:43
most of those figures show around a 10% loss so of course if you a put a bit thought into the ones you want to lay off then no doubt you could make it profitable. Personally i think even with a level playing field those figures would probably be quite similar if a little less ------------------------------------------------------------------------ With respect, I don't think that's true. They show a progressive loss expressed a s % of total staked by races run at LS 1.01 +0.6% 1.05 0 1.10 -1.5% 1.25 -2.2% 1.5 -4.5% 1.75 -5.8% 1.98to 2.0 -10.8% |
|
By:
I was looking at BJ's figure for 1.2 and bigger Sandown, seemed between the 8 and 13% mark
|
|
By:
It wouldn't take much skill to be able to turn those numbers into your favour. A strong race reader would comfortably make a profit setting keep-lays imo.
|
|
By:
Stevie
I think iIunderstand what is happening. I'm looking at amount STAKED and your looking at amount RISKED which matters with odds on chances. On amounts staked the loss is progressive. On amounts risked it seems flat. Even more important to find out what is happening at higher price breaks. |
|
By:
BJ
I've only just realised that your figures are expressed as RACES rather than RUNNERS. Do you mean RACES for totals? Not certain that can right, can it? |
|
By:
Good thread Sandown. All**of course as betfair have research that proves you'll lose your money just as fast using a pin and betting in the pre-race market compared to doing the same on the ir market. This evidence was compiled by betfair experts and was accepted by the GC so it must be true. Anyone who says otherwise is just doing so to selfishly protect their own integrity imo.
|
|
By:
Feck
I recently read "YOU BET" the BF story. Quite interesting. Not a gambler amongst them apart from Bert from beginning to now. All trading or ITor financial backgrounds. If I play roulette then it matters whether there are 1 or 2 zeros.I will lose my money faster with the latter. If I play with £100 bank at £10 a throw on a single number as against evens/odds I expect to have a shorter stay unless of course I strike lucky for the obvious reasons of losing runs and variance. It seems reasobable to conclude that IR markets have a higher negative edge and a lot more volatility/variance than pre-race markets. So, BF's evidence is based on what exactly? |
|
By:
Can't believe I bothered with this but didn't take me too long in the end anyway.
Here are the IR figures for 2009 so far, looks like most are overreacting, figs seem ok to me Hopefully this table formats ok [pre] Price Bets Winners Losers ExpectedWin% ActualWin% 1.05 4656 4419 237 95.24 94.91 1.1 4835 4439 396 90.91 91.81 1.2 5270 4450 820 83.33 84.44 1.3 5761 4460 1301 76.92 77.42 1.5 6607 4461 2146 66.67 67.52 2 8452 4318 4134 50 51.09 2.5 9932 3971 5961 40 39.98 3 12245 4018 8227 33.33 32.81 3.5 11539 3192 8347 28.57 27.66 4 15399 3709 11690 25 24.09 5 17478 3371 14107 20 19.29 6 19086 3057 16029 16.67 16.02 10 22743 2146 20597 10 9.44 20 24656 1156 23500 5 4.69 [/pre] |
|
By:
Good work, bacon. Those figures wont be well recieved by the lets-destroy-ir regulars.
|
|
By:
Sandown, not only did their research "show" that pre-race was as unfair as ir it also "showed" that there were more people betting pre-race unaware they were betting against people who might have studied form harder than they had than people betting ir who were unaware the speed of light was not infinite.
|
|
By:
As by way of a comparison let's have a look at the pre-off market for 2009
Not much different I would say... [pre] Price Bets Winners Losers ExpectedWin% ActualWin% 1.3 87 63 24 76.92 72.41 1.5 246 169 77 66.67 68.7 2 863 413 450 50 47.86 2.5 1406 528 878 40 37.55 3 2423 788 1635 33.33 32.52 3.5 3245 893 2352 28.57 27.52 4 4402 1066 3336 25 24.22 5 6069 1126 4943 20 18.55 6 7778 1218 6560 16.67 15.66 10 11471 1087 10384 10 9.48 20 11920 587 11333 5 4.92 [/pre] |
|
By:
There were horses winning in the Breeders Cup that never even touched odds on let alone 1.01. That tells me all I need to know about the huge disadvantage ordinary punters without fast pictures face in horse racing. Sure I don't see anyway the playing field can be levelled but making people aware of the disadvantages they face is a good thing.
|
|
By:
aye, nowt to do with their rules on disqualifying pmsl
|
|
By:
Betfair say there's no need for that Clydebank. They are thinking about adding a "you may be betting against people who have indulged in form analysis" warning to the pre-race markets though.
P.S. I am not joking. |
|
By:
Betfair were suspending the markets a few yards before the finishing line on RUK at the last Breeders Cup meeting. Flash steaming will provide as near a level playing field as possible if Betfair could stream the live track feed.
|
|
By:
baconandeggs
Thanks for those figures. I have re-interpreted your figures to aid comparison. From a LAYERS standpoint and expressed as a % of level stakes the IR results show that there is not a straight line progression. As you didnt include under 1.05 I cant be too sure that would show a profit for the lower but I would guess that they might given that there is 0.3% plus at 1.05. Thereafter, there is a slight increasing loss albeit of a smaller magnitude, up to 2.0. So, I suppose we can say that they are in line with BJs figs . After that, instead of the %loss increasing, it seems to steadily show an increasing profit % for the layer! At 20.0 layers make 6.2% profit! Price stakes% 1.05 0.3 1.10 (1.0) 1.20 (1.3) 1.30 (0.6) 1.50 (1.3) 2.00 (2.2) 2.50 0.0 3.00 1.6 3.50 3.2 4.00 3.7 5.00 3.6 6.00 3.9 10.00 5.6 20.00 6.2 Looking at the pre-race (PR) market, it would seem that apart from the price of 1.5, layers have an edge at all prices. Is the 1.5 result a fluke? On this evidence I couldn,t say that there is evidence of a larger spread on IR. All in all, Im now left slightly confused. These figures certainly reassure me that my hedging bets in IR at any price dont appear to give away too much value. IR PR Price stakes% stakes% 1.30 (0.6) 5.9 1.50 (1.3) (3.0) 2.00 (2.2) 4.3 2.50 0.0 6.1 3.00 1.6 2.4 3.50 3.2 3.7 4.00 3.7 3.1 5.00 3.6 7.2 6.00 3.9 6.0 10.00 5.6 5.2 20.00 6.2 1.5 |
|
By:
For those who are interested in these things, and to round off the analysis so far, the results provided by baconand eggs show
a) the pre-race market bias is not significant at either 99% or 95% confidence levels b) the in-running market results show that a bias does exist at 3.5 and above at 95% confidence level but not at 99% confidence. Better statisticians than me are welcome to disagree or not.Make of it what you will. |
|
By:
Another conclusion regarding price sensitivity. If layers can beat those prices by just 2%, then there is a clear and progressive profit for the IR layers up to 8%ros at 20.0 and for layers in the pre-race market the average profit is 5.8% (av 3.5% ros in IR)
Just goes to show why traders who manage to beat the prices by just very small amounts can show a profit. Don't know the reason for it, but for backers to show a positive return at all bands they need to beat the price by up to 7% in both markets. |
|
By:
For traders = backers or layers. Didn't mean to imply that backing and laying necessary per se.
|
|
By:
ttt as I want to re-read this
|
|
By:
Sandown new
|
|
By:
Delta
Thanks for bringing this back. 10 years ? I must admit that I very rarely look at the GF these days so was taken a little by surprise. |
|
By:
Very interesting reading it reminds me of when i read Alfie
|