|
By:
cheers
|
|
By:
Desert Vision opens 5/2,layed at 2/1,SP also 2/1.That's one back.
|
|
By:
Total Impact,opens 11/4,layed at 9/4,wins 2/1
|
|
By:
any more tame ?
|
|
By:
215 TEJIME
240 CRACK AWAY 250 ELUSIVE Only getting one horse per race matched,taking just the one bet per horse too. |
|
By:
like it tame
|
|
By:
315 DARK BEN
|
|
By:
325 TRANSMISSION
|
|
By:
Tame, what odds are you laying at compared to SP?
|
|
By:
215 TEJ 1.57
240 CRACK 4.0 250 ELUSIVE 6.0 315 DARK 7.0 325 TRANS 4.5 |
|
By:
good day then tame --you just laying fixed stake or payout ?
|
|
By:
Got my nose back in front now.I'm just laying to fixed stake.Small stakes at that.I'll run with it til end of Jan,even though I'm confident I already know the outcome.
|
|
By:
and what you reckon the outcome is mate ?
|
|
By:
Round and round in circles.
345 RONALDO 6.4 |
|
By:
Money talks,sometimes.......that'll be a losing day again then.
|
|
By:
would you be fairly confident of a pfofit following for a month tame ?
|
|
By:
Not at all Brian.I'm confident it's a break evenish game,nothing much either way.
So,if you've lost a few quid,the tide will turn,maybe enough to put you back in front,before the tide turns again,and drags you right back. This is why bank management is so important.People often go skint by overstaking and losing,and when the tide turns in their favour,they're out of ammunition. |
|
By:
cheers mate - tbh i like the maths of it all
deffo gonna give it a bash in the new year --- cheers |
|
By:
Take that last race.Ronaldo opened 15/2.I offered 11/2,and got matched eventually.You would think over the long term I'd be well in front.It fascinates me why I'm not.
How would you fare if you went into a bookies and started backing these things when they hit 11/2 ? |
|
By:
There is some rather muddled up thinking on this thread which could do with a little sorting out, I feel qualified to post on this because I make a living on betfair from automated strategies which exploit price movements both in running and pre off. I don't have a job, as far as making money goes this is all I do.
Some criticism follows, I hope this isn't taken badly as I mean it to be helpful. B.T.O's method is nothing new, it's just a very crude attempt at bookmaking. What you're doing is putting up a series of would be "books" at ever more fantastic percentages and hoping that they'll match. Obviously they don't, only bets on horses which firm (or steam- same thing) match, which leaves you with an un-balanced book and a bucket of liability on whichever horses happen to have steamed that day. Now you just cross your fingers like all the rest..... If you had layed a full book (like a bookmaker does) then you wouldn't have to worry, but that's not the case here, you've just layed a couple of horses so now you have to ask yourself why you think the bets you've layed are likely to show value, and if you can't think of a reason then something's wrong. So, why would anyone think this would work? B.T.O's assertion that you'll win because you'll "beat the top fluctuation" is nonsence, the top fluctuation is where you would find good value to back, the best value to lay at is at the bottom fluctuation, whilst the middle is to be avoided like the plague- and that's exactly where this strategy will leave you. If you could lay all horses at the bottom of their fluctuation that would wonderful, but the method under discussion doesn't get anywhere near that, quite the opposite- using this strategy you will always end up laying at average odds well above the best lay value and that's very bad news. Let's use an example to make it even clearer why laying "on the way down" is a bad idea: Imagine a horse that starts at 4 and steams to 2 just before the off, using B.T.O's method you would end up laying it at everage odds of 3 ish- so there you are with a horse going off at 2 which you've layed at 3, now look the backer in the eye (the one who took your bets and is now in profit) and tell him you're feeling clever. Of course there will also be horses that shorten in price and then lengthen again, but even in this instance this strategy makes certain that you only ever get a part of the potential value that is to be had from these movements. If a horse goes from 4 to 2 and then back to 4 on your watch then you can't be very proud of laying it at 3 because you've missed out on a much better price. Another theory of why this might work says that horses that steam tend to be value to lay. I am much more sympathetic to this idea, it's generally true that over large samples steamers show lay value and drifters show back value, but this method cannot take advantage of this because it will always get you the wrong price and in gambling price is everything, I really do mean EVERYTHING. It's no use laying steamers if you lay them at their "pre steamed" prices. If you're still not convinced, ask yourself this (always a good question): Why isn't everyone doing this? It's not because it's inconvenient- it would be a piece of p1ss for anyone with Gruss to write an exel sheet to put all the bets on automatically whilst they sleep/walk the dog/whatever else (I have no idea why B.T.O hasn't done so). It's not because they haven't thought of it- this is a very simple strategy and there are plenty of very clever people on betfair who do a lot of research and who have the funds and resources to pile into anything profiable like you wouldn't believe, and believe me- they're not doing this. Why then? (answers welcome) This is not to say that there isn't hope, you CAN make money making books, you CAN make money laying steamers and if you can figure out a more effective way to lay horses at or near the bottom of their fluctuation you'll make a killing. B.T.O is not a million miles away, but a much smarter approach is needed if you want to make propper money. Having said all of the above I wouldn't necessarily advise any of you to stop using this strategy, I find that I learn even from strategies that I subsequently ditch and the chances are that if you pursue this line and work on it you'll start to see ways of making it work. I would say cut your stakes RIGHT down though, becuse you're not there yet. |
|
By:
Thank you for taking the time to post Mr Robot,very much appreciated.
|
|
By:
Aye Robot,
Some interesting assumptions there! While that is very good advice and addresses some points extremely well, I think you may have misinterpreted what this method does. It is not necessary to lay at bottom fluctuation of ring prices. Bookmakers offer TOP fluctuation here and are doing very nicely, yet the only people likely to take top fluctuation are the serious punters on fancied horses. Reversing your theory, I'd ask the same questions you asked of me. Why aren't every man and his dog backing horses that firm below the opening price and making a killing? It would be easy to automate this, I'm sure you know. If you backed every horse that moved in a point, you would capture small and large steamers, so hypothetically make a killing. There are reasons why this simply isn't so. I outlined at the outset, that you need to stake conservatively because we don't have the luxury of getting matched on outsiders like a bookie, therefore our liabilities are always higher and that there will be clusters where steamers come home. That's just the nature of the game. I'd suggest anyone trialling this use very small stakes until you know it works. I know it works, but that's not the point, times are tough right now both in Aus and the UK in relation to steamers, but I've stuck with it for two years, and learned a valuable lesson when I started doubting it and reversed the strategy. It certainly isn't for everyone, I guess I should have realised that. |
|
By:
Take that last race.Ronaldo opened 15/2.I offered 11/2,and got matched eventually.You would think over the long term I'd be well in front.It fascinates me why I'm not.
How would you fare if you went into a bookies and started backing these things when they hit 11/2 ? A1 You will be A2 You would lose your shirt So if you think a horse is firming, you could back it and reap the rewards, I can categorically and without hesitation tell you that you would lose. I feel it necessary to back up my statements with some figures. These are figures obtained from the actual live betting ring, not morning prices or online prices, but what's happening at the track. 366 Horses considered. If you took Top Fluctuation about every horse that opened at $3.00 or less in the ring, you'd lose 8.28% If you were able to predict which one's would firm and took Top Fluctuation about them you'd make 27.26% backing them. Of course, if you're that savvy there are easier ways to make a quid. In the real world, we know that it's not as easy to pick out which one's will firm, because other people who know more than we do about a horse will drive the prices in either direction. So not knowing and setting up our prices 10 ticks below the opening quote will become breakeven on firmers. Anything below this is profit, regardless of where the price ends up finally and regardless of what the SP is. Why you are behind at the moment is because we have more money on the big steamers, so if you have a little on a small steamer and it loses, you win a little. If you have more on a big steamer and it wins you lose more. The pattern of results at the moment is simply the big steamers winning. It has nothing to do with the odds you layed at. When a couple of big steamers lose (and they do) you will bounce back into profit. You need to be patient, as the implied chances mean that you will go through bad patches. But I know that anything below 10 ticks, even on big steamers is lay profit. |
|
By:
I've been trying this for UK greyhounds. The results after a small sample with small stakes are:
Lays Markets Total Stake P+L #VALUE! 42 26 56,93 4,89 8,59% Using the same philosophy as BTO, that steamers are good lay value. I'll keep updating it and keep you posted. |
|
By:
G'day BTO.
If 10 ticks below opening quote is break even,why bother with them ? Why not start 15 or even 20 ticks below and use 10 tick increments from this point ? |
|
By:
[b]Number
Strike Rate Profit/Loss to £10 stake |
|
By:
Backing horses who drift in the market is more profitable than backing those whose odds shorten, according to Betfair. The betting exchange`s claim represents the latest ingredient in Betfair`s attempt to counteract allegations that exchanges pose a threat to racing`s integrity, with non-triers allegedly being laid on the exchanges, where their price drifts before the horse involved loses.
On the basis of an analysis of six months` data, from the second half of 2004, Betfair said: The evidence of nearly 2,000 races and 20,000 horses shows that more money would have been made backing drifters than backing horses that shortened. Defining a `drifter` as a horse whose price moved out by more than 20 per cent during the final five minutes before the official start time of each race, and a `shortener` as a horse for whom the reverse was true, Betfair claimed: The analysis from every runner in 1,864 races over the summer and autumn of 2004 shows categorically that punters who bet on horses that drift in the betting in the final five minutes do better than those who bet on horses that shorten in the market. A 1 level-stake bet immediately before the start of each race produced a loss of 345 on shorteners but a profit of 570 from backing drifters. A Betfair statement added: These results completely contradict the stated view of those who use anecdotal evidence to project the idea that the biggest drifters in the betting market are `prepared to lose`, and thus represent bad value bets for punters. Detractors of exchanges are keen to highlight horses that drift and lose but conveniently forget those that drift and win. This analysis serves as a timely reminder that there are many reasons why horses drift in the market. It proves that the view that a drift in price indicates some form of skulduggery is a lazy and incorrect one. Drifting horses do not drift on the basis of either nefarious activity or inside information; they drift because market forces dictate the price and, as financial markets show, market forces can get it wrong. |
|
By:
Things may have changed in the last 5 years
|
|
By:
Old sample, and observation period was 5 mins before off. There have been subtle changes in the market over past few years.
Also, it is interesting that BF have not refreshed this study, as it is in their interests to do so. |
|
By:
very interesting thread , just read the whole thing from the begining , im taking it b.t.o that your assuming that the early prices are indicative of the chances of the horse winning and not market lead(weight of money) the market evolves into a market lead one inbetween early prices coming out and race time .
|
|
By:
The market "would" be efficient if not for the weight of money.
What I mean is that movement in one direction or another is started by those with bigger money than average, who know something. Considering ONLY these monies, the market would be close to perfectly efficient. However, those who know nothing but follow the leader drive poor backing value and poor laying value either way. Then traders try to take advantage of a perceived swing which gets out of control. Thus, backing drifters and laying steamers becomes profitable. If one goes through a handful of Betfair SP's you'll soon see glaringly obvious anomolies. Why is a second favourite twice it's ring price? Why is the favourite 5% below SP (SP not including commission)? This opens a whole new conundrum. Why do people take below ring price on Betfair, when they can take bookies price? If it's because Betfair markets are a better indication than track prices, then why aren't people crushing on course prices instead of paying commission. It's a perplexing dilemma, however, Betfair's study is current today because market participation and forces are exactly the same, my sampling mirror's Betfair's findings fairly closely. It is not in Betfair's interest to republish such a document for a variety of reasons, not the least of which, after commission most profit is eaten up. |
|
By:
Why aren't every man and his dog backing horses that firm below the opening price and making a killing? It would be easy to automate this, I'm sure you know.
The answer is in the question- by the time they have shortened it's too late. A backer employing such a strategy (effectively the reverse of your strategy) would end up suffering the same problem as your layers are likely to, that is they would end up backing at an average price that was in the middle of the price fluctuation for that selection. Margins (or edges if you prefer that term) are very thin on betfair, if you're betting based on price movements then you have to hit the top (if backing) or the bottom (if laying). Otherwise your edge will be too thin and you'll end up paying too much comission. Bets in the middle of a price fluctuation range are unlikely ever to offer sufficient value- whether backed or layed (if not taking a view on the outcome that is). |
|
By:
12.25 MARK THE BOOK 13/2 early,layed at 5.7,returned 7/2.A fortunate winner.
|
|
By:
I've just brought an old thread to the top "laying the shorteners"
It's from last March,just shows I've gone around in a big circle since then. |
|
By:
I would suggest that your sample is either not clean or representative. I have prices logged and refreshed every 0.5 secs for thousands of races and the survey results are no longer valid.
Please don't tell me your using the BF historical data available for download because that data is worthless for this type of analysis. The commission was just as much a factor when they originally published as it is today, so that is not a reason for BF not to re-publish the results. Quite simply this strategy will not work for the reasons outlined by Aye Robot. |
|
By:
No, it's not too late at all.
Often a horse will be $2.10 here and evens in the ring. Price goes to $1.90 in the ring, price stays at $2.10 or goes to $2.00. So you can back it at $2.00 here, when it's $1.90 in the ring. |
|
By:
I don't wish to argue the point with you.
My results are clear, and for more than two years I've been making a steady return. Granted it has massive ups and downs, but always ends up on the right side of the ledger. The data I have is mine logged to excel, so either your qualifying parameters are different or we just disagree. |
|
By:
Ok fair enough. Good luck.
But good to debate the merits of the system, especially given people are blindly following your ideas. I urge people to use small stakes, keep detailed records, and report back at regular intervals. Happy to be proven wrong if the system works over the longer term. |
|
By:
TameTheTiger 28 Dec 13:34
12.25 MARK THE BOOK 13/2 early,layed at 5.7,returned 7/2.A fortunate winner. Sorry, Tiger, but I have to disagree here. Mark the book wasn't just fortunate imo, Giles Cross wasn't winning that race anyway, and Eath Planet apparently wasn't good enough. He had AP on board, so no excuses there. Mark the book has a form 11f223 over 3m, hardly a weak competitor. |
|
By:
This is also why I urged people to play small stakes until it was proven to them.
I don't think anyone should blindly follow anyone's advice without first proving it to themselves in real time. |