Gambler liquidity to massively decrease from yesterday

Any markets you could try you don't play at the moment?

If you can make any pre commission profit on any new markets you don't already play it would help reduce your pc.

Feck, if you are backing more selections in the same race, then it stands to reason that your commission % will drop. You could think of backing more runners as becoming more and more like a trader: at the extreme, if you manage to back all selections in the race (at your required margins) then you'd end up with a green book, just like a trade who has backed & laid the same selection.

Just trying to warn you before you start off down the slippery slope to becoming an evil trader!

Feck, if you are backing more selections in the same race, then it stands to reason that your commission % will drop. You could think of backing more runners as becoming more and more like a trader: at the extreme, if you manage to back all selections in the race (at your required margins) then you'd end up with a green book, just like a trade who has backed & laid the same selection.

That was something I thought I was always aware of Mr Magoo but had this clearly wrong idea that there was some kind of crossover point.


Just trying to warn you before you start off down the slippery slope to becoming an evil trader!

In light of discovering the error of my ways I'm headed in the other direction.

They don't want you to supply liquidity.

But surely the answer is to back both for more until you drive it to the point where your expected cg/gp is exactly 0.4?

Increasing stakes doesn't work in the relatively thin markets I trade. You distort the market to your disadvantage.

Whereas offering poorer prices results in less market distortion to my advanatge,

So this is a win/win for me and a major revelation.

My net profits have increased since I started paying the pc.

Seems Mr Eejit has had the same revelation.

If you have extra bets available for a market that have marginal expectation and your sole reason for placing them is churning, then how about placing them using a different (but PC linked) account.

As Mr Magoo says, you are effectively hedging/trading/whatever if you place them on the same account as your main bets.

Ultimately, for maximum commission (inefficiency), if you're usually backing several horses per market then use a different account for each horse.

Mad...

Bayes,

With regard to Feck's example above, placing a greater amount on both of the selections in each race, at the same average price of 4.2, wouldn't appear to have any effect on the cg/gp ratio. Therefore, I have presumed that, by back both for more, you mean place an additional amount on both horses in each race at a lower price that retains a positive expectation after commission.

That would only be possible in Feck's example by backing either or both horses in each race at the price of 4.1 (4.038), allowing for the commission savings by backing two selections in each race, effectively 2.058/correct price 2. Assuming Feck is accurate in his assessment that the correct price of all the horses is 4, any available price in the horse racing markets lower than 4.1 would have a negative expectation after commission.

What if Feck was originally able to place the full amount that complied with Kelly, or Feck's own staking plan, on both horses in each race at an average price of 4.2? Under those circumstances, whilst possible, it wouldn't seem to be credible to suggest backing both horses for an additional amount at a lower price with the intention of driving the expected cg/gp ratio higher.

Further, consider the example of someone on a 2% commission rate who obtained the price of 32 on two horses in each race that should be correctly priced at 30. Under those circumstances it wouldn't appear to be possible to increase the cg/gp ratio above 0.4 on those markets by backing both for more without creating a negative profit expectation on the bets. The price 31 being unavailable ignoring cross matching possibilities and 30 being negative after commission.


Feck,

Despite my comments above (or perhaps reflective of the above if I've got my calculations wrong), I find your example and comments somewhat contradictory.

As you acknowledged, in your example you've no reason to back one and leave out the other. If you did so, your expected net profit after PC and all other charges would be less than by including both selections in each race.

You suggested that it may be possible for you to place your lower margin bets through a different account. If that refers to a linked account, I'm not convinced that it would be likely to increase your overall net profit (despite noting the seeming agreement of Fred and others with you on this matter).

If you're implying the use of an unlinked account, that strikes me as a spurious argument. On that basis anybody could avoid the regular and higher rate PC entirely, regardless of the liquidity they supply and the manner in which they bet. This assumes the accounts remained unlinked and they could obtain new accounts at will, which I presume is unlikely.

Your argument that, if you simply stopped placing your low margin bets, you might recoup those losses through savings in pc's strikes me as somewhat weak.

But surely the answer is to back both for more until you drive it to the point where your expected cg/gp is exactly 0.4?

Bayes, in a discussion elsewhere I suggested increasing my stakes. This would generally result in accepting lower odds for the additional stakes which in turn would increase my cg/gp much as you're suggesting. Horse racing's not a game where you can have a lot of faith in the accuracy of your tissue though. Lack of information, corruption, selective watering and not being able to see the horses in the paddock or going down tend to temper confidence.



As you acknowledged, in your example you've no reason to back one and leave out the other. If you did so, your expected net profit after PC and all other charges would be less than by including both selections in each race.

pxb, the example I used was mainly about keeping things simple and illustrating the increased cg/gp by cutting down on the number of bets. I wasn't suggesting I would in practice leave one of those two out. I should also probably have pointed out that many of my lower margin bets will be for a much smaller take out. e.g. in a large field I might have bets to take out 20K, 10K, 3K with another 3 or 4 returning the overall stake of 2K. The lower take out bets are more about cushioning the effects of losing runs (I'm prone to suicidal ones) than expecting any great profit. Obviously excluding these "savers" would lead to more losing markets and boost cg/gp and I'd be fairly confident wouldn't decrease gross profits by any great amount. I would guess almost certainly not by the additional 15% of gp's the pc will take.

When I suggested the second account (I was meaning a separate one not in my name) I was aware of the "well why not just use that to escape the 40%" but I was working on the basis that the 2nd account wouldn't attract the same attention particularly as my main account would still be on the go but I'm not even sure it would be worthwhile anyway.         

My main worry would be what effect the reduced liquidity would have on my normal commission rate but even if it went above 2% it would be no great disaster given I'm on 40% pc. I mean if my normal rate went to 3.2% and I didn't change my betting in any way that would just make my cg/gp around 0.4 in any case.

I've got a database of all my bets so I'll get round to checking all this out when I can.



Fred & Pumpkin, are sub accounts not just linked in every sense (i.e. normal commission & pc)?

Sub accounts are not linked in terms of commission paid. Each account pays commission on bets on that account alone and has no knowledge of bets placed on other accounts.

Everythings linked for PC feck :(

The main advantage with sub accounts is that all wins/losses with count towards your comm rate whereas separate accounts will have their own comms rate based on activity.

That is correct feck, and they are combined as regards to the pc too.

Basically where Betfair used to encouraged trading 100%, they've now gone to a charging structure where a mix of trading and outright betting is optimal.

If you don't trade by taking value on both sides when you can, you are throwing money away.
if you don't place outright bets at value when there is a risk of not being able to trade out (fast markets or low liquidity), you are also (probably) throwing money away.

These charges skew the natural relationship between risk & reward.

Can anyone be @rsed confirming these figures


cp = commission paid, I'm on 2% rate, 40% pc.

Assume in every race I find two 4.2 shots that are true 4.0.

Staking 0.5 on each using the same account, per race I'd expect

gp = 0.05, cp = 0.011, cg = 0.013, pc = 0.007


Staking 0.5 on each using 2 accounts, per race I'd expect

gp = 0.05, cp = 0.016, cg = 0.01925, pc = 0.00075


So total commission paid through 1 account would be 0.018 and through two accounts 0.01675 meaning you'd get charged 7% less using two accounts?

Getafix, if you mean gp - cp then it is lower for the 2 seperate accounts.

40% as stated in the post catfleppo.

Feck

Given the need for in-depth anaylsis for serious horse racing bets, the likely imprecision of estimated chances, and the need for net value to be present to win l/t in any given race, I doubt that the effort required to go in this direction is really worth the candle.If it is practical, which I doubt, is the effort justified?

Iwould argue that the fundamental reason why traders seem to make a success of things almost immediately is because of the simple reason that they are prepared to cut their losses. My own calculations tell me that cutting back losses (stop loss) leads to a better return than a straight postion play and that this is a better route to go than churning - for opinion players that is.

Sandown, my problem with that is the bulk of my money ends up on horses that just don't seem to shorten or shorten very little (I don't get much on gambles). If ir was a level playing field I'd certainly be putting up lays at various odds. I totally understand and agree with what you're saying though.

Using Single Account:

Race 1(WL): GP = 1.1; CP = 0.022
Race 2(LW): GP = 1.1; CP = 0.022
Race 3(LL): GP = -1; IC = 0.03
Race 4(LL): GP = -1; IC = 0.03

Totals: GP = 0.2; CP = 0.044; IC = 0.06; CG =(0.044+0.06)/2 = 0.052;
PC = 0.4*0.2-0.052 = 0.028; Total Charges (including PC) = 0.044+0.028 = 0.072; Net Profit (after all charges)= 0.2-0.072 = 0.128

Per Race: GP = 0.05; CP = 0.011; CG = 0.013; PC = 0.07; TC = 0.018; NP = 0.032

Using Two Accounts:

Account1:

Race 1(W): GP = 1.6; CP = 0.032
Race 2(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 3(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 4(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015

Totals: GP = 0.1; CP = 0.032; IC = 0.045; CG = (0.032+0.045)/2 = 0.0385; PC = 0.4 * 0.1 - 0.0385 = 0.0015; TC = 0.032+0.0015 = 0.0335  NP = 0.1-0.0335 = 0.0665

Account 2:

Race 1(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 2(W): GP = 1.6; CP = 0.032
Race 3(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015
Race 4(L): GP = -0.5; IC = 0.015

Totals: GP = 0.1; CP = 0.032; IC = 0.045; CG = 0.0385; PC = 0.0015; TC = 0.0335; NP = 0.0665 

Combined Totals: GP = 0.2; CP = 0.064; IC = 0.090; CG = 0.077; PC = 0.0030; TC = 0.067; NP = 0.133

Per Race: GP = 0.05; CP = 0.016; CG = 0.01925; PC = 0.00075; TC = 0.01675; NP = 0.03325


Therefore, I concur with your figures Feck. On that basis, I should also acknowledge that you, Fred, Pumkinslayer and others appear to be correct in asserting that the use of two linked accounts can result in lower charges and a higher net profit.


I trust that this anomaly will rectified shortly to stop the parasitic multiple account using Ferengi middlemen taking advantage!

Hope all this intricate posting is not distracting you guys from your everyday research and analysis of punting opportunities ?