8% edge laying every single favorite horse

However if they are to $10 stakes, using $1000 might make it slightly more appetising.

Slicer,

laying the field at SP to only $100 liability and allowing for full 5% commission is like this...
$2,755.02 profit per $100 liability for the year so far.

$1,000 liability is $27,550.20 profit if you're paying 5% commission.

Point of interest even $10,000 liability is only $10 stake on 1000/1 runner.

I would NOT lay the whole field if I was to do this, I would only lay those priced less than 10.

ARE YOU REALLY SURE YOUR FIGURES ARE CORRECT?????

Really cannot see it myself, but then I am very old now, worn out, with mashed potatoes for brains!

Month    UK & Ireland
1     547.36
2    -1,068.54
3     4,717.53
4    -383.65
5    -2,292.92
6    -420.08
7     1,273.29
8     16.41
9    -550.48
   
Total     1,838.92

I did the calculations for UK and Ireland and get monthly figures that are not exactly the same as BTOR but highly correlated. Although 2011 has been profitable so far it's not difficult to imagine a bad month wiping that out. I drew a graph of the daily bank (assuming start with $100 and take $1 liability laying everything) and it looks pretty much like a random walk to me, apart from a recent positive trend in Ireland.

I tried to insert the graphs but the moderator has to approve the picture before I can post it. In the spirit of openness that BTOR shared the strategy I will post the VBA code I used to produce these results.

It's nice that there are traditions on the forum, it makes it feel comforting and familiar. This one comes round every 4-6 months and is one of my favorites:

Gullible "noob" arrives and ask how to make money.

BTO Tells him to lay every horse at X below board price and cancel after 10 seconds ir (or something similar) but warns of inevitable ups and downs which have to be ridden out.

Noob eventually goes for it and sometimes posts results.

Noob quickly loses a couple of K (of course)which is all he's got (stupid burger).

BTO tells him that he hasn't given it long enough to ride out the ups and downs, only it's too late for noob who's already off down to King's Cross to earn the money back with the only asset he's got left.

All goes quiet 'till next time.

Isnt it called the BetFair Roundabout.

Round and round and round it goes,
When it stops the noob will lose!

One of the traditions is held up by Aye
Robot. Some clown always comes in to destroy a good thread, so that anything worth noting is destroyed by sarcasm and cynicism.

Two things have been proved with this thread.

You can make money at Betfair SP, the data is there for anyone to investigate for themselves.

Some clown sends me away wishing I'd never contributed.

Feeling sensitive BTO? I'm sorry.... There's nothing sarcastic about my post though. Cynical - well yes, but then I'm sure you'd have to admit that the teddy bears have been round this particular garden several times before.

BTO-
There is nothing wrong with trying to help others!
You been on here long enough to know that when someone posts a successful method it is met with cynicism.

These are the graphs of daily bank balance I built using data from 2008. The only part that looks profitable is Irish races since 2010, and that was after a pretty painful losing streak.

Excellent graphs.
The simulations are for LAY all horses in a race?

Thanks. Lay all up to a BSP of 10.

I was going to paste the VBA into the forum but it's a bit big - if anyone wants it send me a message.

So these graphs show laying below 10 doesn't work!

Very sincere thanks for these postings!

I don't think that's what graph shows at all.
It shows the effect of paying the full 5% commission has on the profits.
Love to see a graph on all runners, because so much less commission is paid on winnings.

Also doesn't it ring alarm bells that UK is so bad, yet IRE is so good?
It's obvious by the graphs that one should dutch back all those under 10 in the UK, and dutch lay all those under 10, in IRE.

However, I won't be doing that anytime soon.......for obvious reasons.

Also doesn't it ring alarm bells that UK is so bad, yet IRE is so good?
It's obvious by the graphs that one should dutch back all those under 10 in the UK, and dutch lay all those under 10, in IRE.

I don't want to offend you again BTO but are you kidding!!? The graph shows no such thing. On any randomly fluctuating line you will see "uphill" and "downhill" ramps as well as periods of turbulence. In the UK graph PART of the line slopes downwards, on the Irish one PART of it slopes upwards. These graphs look exactly as you would expect them to look if the bets showed no value at all.

A sensible person would combine the two together for a better overview, that person would see a randomly fluctuating line that went nowhere.

Let's also remember that there are far fewer meetings in Ireland, at a guess - about a fifth of the uk number. If you were to adjust the relative length of the graphs for number of meetings rather than time then the Irish Graph would look much more like a fairly violent V shape than any sort of trend.

Next, look at the relative size of the smaller peaks and troughs along the graphs and compare them to the overall trend. It's immediately obvious that the "blips" on both lines show larger swings in profit than does the overall movement of the graph. That's a classic warning sign that your "overall trend" is bogus.

Only gamblers are able to look at Graphs like this and see "winning trends." What you are looking at is a randomly moving line that shows an overall negative expectancy. Nothing more than that.

These graphs look exactly as you would expect them to look if the bets showed no value at all.

Completely disagree, because of commission, if the bets showed no value at all, they would both trend down.
The number of meetings is irrelevant over years of data in my opinion.

Let me explain this further.

If there were no edge (breakeven), then both graphs would trend down, neither would go up in such a strong manner.
This is based on the full negative impact of the maximum commission.
There would be wild fluctuations of course, but no upward trend.
The reason for the difference in the TREND in the graphs is due to the overround on the races, not the pattern of results.
I'm talking about the trend, not the fluctuations.

Over the last two years, after 5% commission -

UK -$729.92
IRE +$3,751.81

Laying the field to BFSP.

Now just imagine paying 4% commission instead of 5%.
Or paying 3% commission, or even better, under 3%.

To say there is no edge, is not realising the impact of commission.

The overround is also the reason why the Australian SP graph is far better than the Ireland graph.

So taking UK, IRE, and AUS, there is a clear edge even at full commission. Anything below the maximum commission is extra cream and a big reduction in commission is lots of cream [:)]

Here is the workout at 4% commission:

UK  +$1,030.42
IRE +$4,198.15

And at 3% commission:

UK  +$2,790.77
IRE +$4,644.49

These results are laying to a miserly $100 liability per race!

I don't really like systems. I understand that they can work but they are just not for me. I think in a way they are just an excuse not to look at each race and each horse on its individual case, perhaps because of laziness.

Also systems break down or don't work over time, because circumstances change. take nick mordin's system on the st leger for example. a few years ago he kept going on about how horses that had run at further than a mile and a half before the doncaster race had no chance in the classic itself. then mastery comes along and busts that theory, and master minded did yesterday.

that theory had some logic while the st leger was still a prestigious race, because top class animals were still being aimed at it. they weren't campaigned at further than a mile and half before that race because it would harm their stud value. but it's become more and more unfashionable as a race to the point where high class racehorses just won't run in the race anymore. so the horse's that have been kept at shorter trips just aren't good enough that you can trust them to beat the proven stayers.

also I don't really get what you are saying phil, about that systems break down if you can't identify which one of 3 horse's similarly priced will start 4th favourite.

say you have three horse's, one if 12, the other is 14 and the other is 16. they are trading at fourth, fifth and sixth in the betting respectively. at the time you backed it the one priced 12 is the fourth favourite, but then the other two are backed in and it becomes sixth in the betting at the off.

has this really ruined your system? it's still the same price that you backed it at, so it's not like you backed it at a bad price. the point about whether a horse is favourite, or fourth favourite or whatever, seems to me irrelevant, what really matters is whether it actually represents value or not. and you can't rate that horse individually by a system.

Position in Betting Change
It has ruined a system that is based on backing the 4th+ in the betting at SP system. If a system was researched from analysing 4th+ in the betting, but the punter then backs the wrong horses then the rules of the system are wrong.

I agree that in some cases where there is a price filter you do not need to be so rigid, such as back A Trainer when price is in single figures and you back it at 9 - it drifts to 11. But for the 4th+ in the betting system, or the OPs system then you have to use the same rules when making the selection as used for the analysis. So it's not so much that you have ruined the system, but rather you are now following a totally different system.

Systems
Every betting method is a system. If you pick a horse because it is 5lb better off with the fav then this is a system. If you pick a horse because it had the fastest fractions and is running in a lower class today then this is a system. Every bet ever placed is a system.

What you probably don't like are the rules that make up most systems. Some people don't like this because it causes uncertainty and conflicts when making decisions.

Mordins 3 Year Rule
Mordin said that systems only ever last 3 years. I don't agree with that. A system (that works) will always work until there is a significant influence to the operation of the system. Usually this will be things like changes to the rules and regulations of racing. It can also be when a trainer changes his mode of operation, winds down to retirement, falls out with a major owner etc. But no system should ever fail just because Lady Luck says three years is the lifespan of a system.

I have systems that were created in 2000 and are still profitable. Back then on certain messageboards some said: 'come back next year and post up the results'. I did for about 5 years after that and proved the naysayers wrong. Some of those early systems are still profitable today - 10 years later.

Biggest Punter Fallacy Ever
The biggest punter fallacy is that 'if you say the rules of a system everyone will bet it and it will fail.' This is complete nonsense.

* 9x% of the price of a horse is made up because of the recent form - especially the LTO run. There is no bigger influence on a horses price than recent form.

* Bookies set prices not systems. Bookies are not interested in systems. They are interested in the main telephone tipping lines and Pricewise types and will only adjust prices to account for the expected trade.

* Even if a system is proven to be successful punters will NOT follow it. The vast majority of gamblers have a poverty conciousness - they are addicted to losing money. The same majority have no clue about value. If you show them a winning formula many would not believe it, others would use it for a while and then give up, the remainder would use but not understand value and thus blow all their bank in a few short bets.

* Apart from Beyer ratings no system or method ever in the history of racing has caused a sea-change in betting. No RSB, no golden goose, no cash-master, no equinex, no Mozan racing numerology or any system ever has caused prices to shorten such that the system became a victim of it's own success. Some people say RSB got overbet, some say Massey got overbet. I don't believe that. It's just the case that their methods failed overtime because they were not adaptive.

If systems did have a big influence in prices what do you think will happen when 2 or 3 system bets are in the same race?

Lucky Jim 2/1
Green Tree 5/1
Old Dog 7/1
Blue Sky 10/1
Black Shoes 20/1

Now what if Green Tree was a Massey 5* bet, Old Dog was an RSB max value bet, Old Dog an Uncle Ernie spectacular, Black Shoes a Cash-Master Top bet? Are they all going to Evens co-fav of 4?

Of course not. It hasn't happened and it never will because the prices of horses is mostly dictated by the recent form figures and nothing else.

Why Systems Fail
Systems fail not because they have a short 3 year shelf life, not because if the rules are released the system becomes overbet. Systems fail if the core rules are wrong to start with, or if the system operator does not know how to stake effectively.

Excellent post, PP!

brilliant post PP

Betting firms dont need to adapt markets to any system as there system of form compliation has proved effective for ages and so much of the price is the LTO as its so critical to the best clue to current form but of course its flawed as if you study horses that have say pulled up in last 2 races and are big prices they win few races but divide this type of form into 2 types, hourse that havent run for greater than 3 months and those that have run more recently and there is a massive difference in winning chance as there has been so much time for the form of the runner to change and have lesser link to LTO.

But according to the form compilers both type have an equal chance because these guys cant eveluate beyond there closed box approach.

P>S> keep that system to your self [;)]

excellent points phil! given that you consider that 90 percent of the horses price is dictated by recent form, which I'd agree with (bar possibly maiden stakes where much of the prices are driven by racecourse rumour)


do you think a system could be designed to say, lay the horses that won last time out or something along those lines?

Try laying a horse that won last time out but that hasnt run for 90 days or more as its form will have much less chance of being the current physical condition of the runner .

Given enough time all things change.

So if saying a system doesn't change prices, what is your system Phil?

Why w0uld you lay a horse because it hasn't ran for 90 days ?
Supposing it had ran 89 days ago ?
Supposing instead of winning last time, it had been beaten a
short head ?

Answer to all your questions Mr Kenilworth, BECAUSE IT'S THE SYSTEM!!!! And thems the system's rules!

Good comment slicer, kenilworth the reason why I say 90 days is because thats the margin, i can see you like graying the borderlines, 89 days and 2nd short-head, but I didn't filter for that so I cant vouch for any deviation.

That particular system works on the basis that so much emphasis is placed on LTO that if say in
a race stuck up the the racing post on the wall of the average bookmaker is a race full of hopeful runners and theres only 1 or 2 that have won there last race then this is where most of the money is bet and bookmakers love shorting the flames on the card to burn punters fingers, well if that runner hasn't run for over 90 days chances are that last win doesn't mean sweet FA so lay it and your getting great value.

Test it on Adrian Massey site if you don't believe me and while your there check out the reverse to the system, runners that have pulled up last 2 races that haven't run for 90 days or more and now are 16/1 plus and back them, test the 2 systems out, check the results and then reread this post to understand how a perceived edge works not only in theory but also in practice

Perdantic as ever kenilworth.

The real point is to use logic to discover general facts and then try to test them through more precise statistical methods. You do this in reverse and trawl for statistical trends and then try to fathom the logic. I say you have to understand your system, whatever it is, otherwise you never know where it's leading. Once it has been proved in a precise way you can follow it in more general and instinctive ways. But always, you have to think differently than the crowd.

*you can do this in reverse

Any system has to have a theoretical edge or else it cant work, I don't trawl as I perceive theoretical edges then test them, don't do the reverse as thats just looking at meaningless results although this method can find systems that you then realize the theoretical edge after, very good post REM and on the same wavelength as a lot on here.

Though I can play the clown I also think out of the box like you.

An example of a theorectical edge creation can go like this

chance of winning = (ability X speed )against; difficulty of conditions or/and track and/or race type.

Now to get and edge find any mechanism within the formula that you perceive to be the chance and
look for negative and positive factors that will be beyond the average range of the odds compliers
perspective.

Example lets get a favorite to lay so we need something negative, say use just a few above fields

1....ability ; low =novice
2....difficulty of race ; high ; novice chase
3....difficulty of condition ; high ; soft to heavy

Now would you perceive that laying all short priced favorites that were in novice races
in soft to heavy conditions was a profitable system, the answer is yes and check the stats.

You can assemble as many systems as you want as long as you understand how to create a positive or negative edge in respect to the resulting strike rate, its as simple as that.

I don't do horse racing surveys currently though I have done some ground work in the past and theres so much to make its unreal, If you care to check this thread I have given a few systems away but I am sure if you follow the same basic rules as in my previous post you can make your own production line of systems.

I personally love greyhound races as the environment is more reliable as all runners in graded races run the same track at mostly the same distance so there more accurate information

Horse racing has more complex factors involved in the form of different course form with different conditions so theres more ambiguity in the form ratings but you can make basic systems that don't relie on recent form or clocks if you understand factors that are negative and positive that are not work on by odds compilers who use the same old methods that can be undermined quiet easily[:)]

Regarding phillyharper comment about mordins law

Mordins 3 Year Rule
Mordin said that systems only ever last 3 years. I don't agree with that. A system (that works) will always work until there is a significant influence to the operation of the system. Usually this will be things like changes to the rules and regulations of racing. It can also be when a trainer changes his mode of operation, winds down to retirement, falls out with a major owner etc. But no system should ever fail just because Lady Luck says three years is the lifespan of a system.

I have observed systems back in 1991 that still work now because how can you give a sell by date to
a theoretical edge that most odds compliers are not clever enough to make the backbone of any market,

Though markets are sharper now than 20 years ago, by using exchanges with there generated better odds
you reverse the historical wising up of the form compliers providing you take care to filter out the runners than are un-attractive in the separate markets, but thats something that should be second knowelge to any serious gambler as your not out to back just anything, you need the right range of prices to accept for the perceived strike rate of any system.

I have enjoyed reading this thread some very interesting views and points. I can't really contribute with any systems although I am a successful punter I don't currently follow any rigid systems. 

What I will say is that you could do worse than create a backing or laying system which uses trainers course stats (for age group not across the board) obviously positive for back, negative for lay as your foundation.  This becomes particularly profitable when you have very few with positive stats and combine with other factors.  It underpins a lot of my betting it is successful.

3duckeggs, admirable post, I can see you have the theoretical modeling of edges firmly placed in your activities and you profit from them.

Also you understand age groups as a positive and negative group creator and further confirms you have embraced the abilities required to become successful, there is little I can tell you then, though perhaps on greyhounds it might be a different matter.

very well done fellow bettor in the field of the sport of kings

Thanks for that BF.

I don't bet (only occasional trade) on anything other than horse racing as I don't have the knowledge on other sports because I don't follow them and have the time. I suppose this could theoretically change as I gave up work to do this full time now.  I've been betting on horse racing for over 20 years (some years more serious due to circumstances than others).  My angle on trainer stats to be used as a major factor has worked for 15 years +.  I do a lot of trades also now which is going well.

bf_fananatic

You seem to have a lot of the answers.  I found the following particularly interesting.

"Example lets get a favorite to lay so we need something negative, say use just a few above fields

1....ability ; low =novice
2....difficulty of race ; high ; novice chase
3....difficulty of condition ; high ; soft to heavy

Now would you perceive that laying all short priced favorites that were in novice races
in soft to heavy conditions was a profitable system, the answer is yes and check the stats."

You said check the stats.  So I did.

However, I'm not sure I'm on the same wavelength as yourself so could you specify what period your stats cover and also the odds range as "short priced favorites" is a little vague. Industry SP please.

One other thing.  Is your research confined to UK racing, Irish racing or both?

Sorry, there's something else.

How would you cope with double figure losing runs as a layer of these horses?

going back to earlier about what beat the overround was proposing

he said lay the whole field to a fixed liability and a profit can be made

bear with me, i'm not a maths A student but how is that possible?

aren't most betfair sp books around 99%-101%?

Something to do with how you pay far less commission when multiple laying, and I think he's on about only laying under 10.0..

I noticed the under 10 system mate, but he also said;

'Yes, lay all horses in every race @ Betfair SP to the same set liability.
This is too tedious unless you use a bot.
There are plenty of cheap well constructed bots around these days.
I use Betting Assistant.

I guess I shouldn't be amazed, but I have posted a guaranteed winning strategy and had hardly a reply.
How often do you get handed something that works faultlessly for free.'

Why don't you give it a go with £2 stakes, see if it works?

As he says it's tedious. Can't see how it would work logically. If it doesn't work logically I don't bother.

will all horses
get matched
the winners
will all

I think you can get a much bigger edge on betfair by using your own judgement, than slavishly sticking to some system or other.

actually on reflection i'm not sure that a horse price is mostly generated by recent form. connections play a huge role as well. for example if a horse is trained by godolphin or hannon, or aiden o brien, then it will start at a much shorter price than if it were trained by an obscure trainer, even if the horse is of the same ability.

someone with a book of stats might say that this horse trained by saeed bin suroor running at yarmouth has a 28 percent chance of winning, lets say, because that's his strike rate at yarmouth. (I don't actually know what his strike rate is i'm using it as an example.)

but everyone else has access to the same information. Its only by studying the horse and the race in detail can you calculate it's true chances, which any amount of statistics will not be able to tell you.

Some good points Mythical prince. 

Here is a controversial fairly point but I'd argue recent form is vastly overrated and effects prices of horses too much.  I choose whilst using it to treat it as just another factor in my assessment of a horses chances but it is not the first thing I look at not at all.

Should read fairly controversial sorry.

John_Cherry

You are right of course. It's total cobblers.

Laying a full book only makes money if your book is more than 100%.

The "lay all at SP under 10" is tosh too but I can hardly be bothered to argue the toss.

top2rated, Sorry but your correct, that particular statement you refer to that i made about novice
chasers was a bad example as having checked it, the system is of little use and hovers around the 100%
mark return so i am sorry for mis-leading you and others, I do have profitable horse racing systems but don't think its wise of me to give them away, all i was doing with my statement is demonstrating that creating an edge is quite easy it just requires some discipline, some hard work in researching
and other actions.

Except that you were not creating an edge and that being easy.

Having now read some of your other threads...........well!!!!!!

Good luck BF Fananatic, and I hope you prosper finally making it work on here!

Thanks slicer, its not that easy making an edge but at least on an exchange you have the fairest chance of doing so, good luck to you too in all you do.

get your christmas money on here !

Gentlemen,

I told you it works and it does.
Now I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, but if you're not prepared to trial it, or better download the Betfair data and prove me wrong, then how can you claim it's cobblers?

At least go to the Betfair Timeform website and note down each BFSP overround / underround and add it up for at minimum a week.

You'll see that I do know what I'm talking about.

The average lay market is well in excess of 102%

Laying a full book only makes money if your book is more than 100%.

Your average book % is all that counts.

John Cherry,
I run lay the field at SP and those under $10.00 concurrently for commission reasons.
Initially I made nothing out of laying those under 10.00 when my commission was over 4%, but it lowered my overall commission for lay the field.
Now I make a small percentage laying those under 10.00 and a lot more laying the field.

The logic for why it works is in black and white, quite simply check the average BFSP Market Percentage over a week.

okay BTO. What site do you use for Aussie racing data? cheers

Hi BTOR,

Thanks for your persistence with this. I must confess that I didn't even know what BSP before this thread started but your strategy looked too tempting to not investigate further.

I'm using the data available at http://promo.betfair.com/betfairsp/prices/ which covers UK and Ireland. I'm only looking at win results and using the event id to identify a unique race.

From 2nd Sep 2008 the long run average overround is 100.37% in UK and 100.28% in Ireland. Above 100 yes but pretty tight after commission. The monthly averages for 2011 look like this.


Month    UK avg  Ire avg
1    100.41%    100.54%
2    100.42%    100.58%
3    100.19%    100.95%
4    100.31%    100.52%
5    100.38%    100.24%
6    100.36%    100.03%
7    100.18%    99.53%
8    100.12%    99.99%
9    100.24%    99.57%  (up to 17th/18th Sep)

Is there something I'm missing (apart from Aus data)? I don't see where you get 102% from, that's a massive margin.

Given that every single extra £1 on the lay side decreases the overround and eats into your profit you can understand the scepticism at making it public. Especially when there are a few, say 500 or so, users out there who would be very interested in a strategy that only breaks even after commission and they are not short of a bit of cash.

according to other fourmites on another forum it works. 1 lad in particular uses it as his main strategy(could be BTO!). Expect a return of 0.5%-1% max and a very bumby ride. You would need a large bank and the long term view that it works to make it worthwile.Accoring to this chap must people start it but give up calling it a breakeven strategy. BTO's margins look a little exaggarted to me. I have my doubts but it may work at very very low margins.

how is the bsp calculated? If a load of people started doing what BTO said, would the edge be killed?

have a look here for a detailed explanation - http://www.betfair.com/help/Help.SP.Betting/

It is hard to know exactly what the exact effect would be as they are fairly liquid markets with alot of differnt strategies going on in the market so....

thanks max

I don't know how to download data and use excel but i did a running count for the first week in August this year.
I didn't take out commission as I did the count in my head.

It went like e.g. 101% 99% 98% 102% 103% etc which would go

1%-1%-2%+2%+3%= positive 3%

Anyway the first week went as low as -41% but by the end was +115%.
So one would have doubled the bank in one week!

Have you got the link to the other forum max?

THIS IS A VERY GOOD THREAD INDEED

here you go John_Cherry

http://www.propun.com.au/racing_forums/showthread.php?t=21561

The margins seem too tight for me but i suppose for a plug and play method what would you expect! Even at the lowest SP Payout per race i.e £30 over the course of 1 busy saturday you could easily be 100/200 down quid if alot of favs come in. If you have have a few days like this in a row you will find it very difficult to carry on.

Thanks again Max. Not sure I'm with you though. If you lay the whole field it doesn't matter which horse wins?

You do the lay the field but your paying out the same amount on each runner so you will end up winning more if a long shot wins and lose if a favourite wins.Here is an example

HORSE A - 6/4
HORSE B - 6/4
HORSE C - 4/1

So for Horse A&B you will recieve £20 in stakes each for a Liability of £30. Horse C will stake £7.50 for a Liabilty of £30.

If A or B win you will LOSE £2.50 and if C wins you will win £10 (Gross Profit)

The expected return comes from laying books over 100% all the time eeking out a profit. Laying is all about % in the Long run

I've misunderstood. I thought the idea was to lay a book. You'd win and lose 1 or 2% on each race but overall you'd come out with a profit.

Can one lay a book to betfair sp on here, or does it have to be a set liability?

John, go back to the start of the thread and read what was written.  Even I was able to make sense of it, so anyone else with moderate intelligence ought to be okay..

Is there something I'm missing (apart from Aus data)? I don't see where you get 102% from, that's a massive margin.

This includes AUS data where the margin of overround is greater.
102% would be massive without commission or if you could lay the field at BFSP to payout a set amount instead of only fixed liability.
Extra percentages also come from the extra exposure on horses that are underpriced or where late money is dumped in the dying seconds on a short priced favourite in the live market.

Can one lay a book to betfair sp on here, or does it have to be a set liability?

It has to be a book to set liability.
It is simply an unbalanced book but the percentages are in you favour.
If you could lay the book to payout, then everyone would hit it hard with lots of money like the 1.01 layers do.
The fact that it's to liability is a godsend, because of the highs and lows you have to stake your bank properly. After a day or two where it goes against you, most people give up the ghost because they haven't researched it properly.

If you have have a few days like this in a row you will find it very difficult to carry on.
And that's why I use a small percentage of bank and the bank is split equally in the AUS and UK wallets.
If there were no difficult days, the margin would go pretty quickly.

how is the bsp calculated? If a load of people started doing what BTO said, would the edge be killed?

Very few people will do it and stick with it.
The way BFSP is calculated with money matched in the live markets and then money waiting to be matched at SP, I doubt whether the edge would go. If it did it would certainly self correct, as more punters would start backing at BFSP if they saw the prices were x amount better.
Plus you can't stop the traders or corporates dumping large sums into the market forcing the overround.

how much can you realistically make with this system Overound?

Thanks lads. A lot to digest (for my brain) but really appreciate your time and info.

A possible skinny edge would become no edge pretty quickly if Mr B manages to convince his doubters.  There is a saying "would you rather be right or rich". Edges revert to the mean too easily to publicise them you'd think.

Looking at the stats, with the disclaimer that it is a backtest and so of course biased, it does seem that there is a small edge after commission.

However, as mentioned by a few people above it is a bumpy ride. So much so that I think you'd have to be willing to stomach a negative year to extract the edge in the long run. For this reason I think that the edge will remain because not many people have the capital and the patience to persist.

To help smooth the bad months you could try to find other markets with an overround consistently over 100% and diversify your returns. Of course this strategy is also known as "being a bookie".

the edge is 1% at absolute best - more like 0.3% on average. You would need to be churning out a lot to make it pay.

but you cant read

I'm not really trying to convince anyone, I've given the tools to work it out for yourself. However, when someone comes along and says it's cobblers, it's clear they have no understanding and no willingness to research for themselves.
I refer back to the edges posted at various commission levels.
Honestly a week is a drop in the bucket.
I can tell you however that I wouldn't be wasting my time doing this if the edge were anything like 0.3%
However, for the sake of argument, if the edge were a mere 1%, then one could think about it a little and think how one could improve on this edge.
There are a number of ways to do this, I won't reveal them all, but I am willing to help a bit.

Commission is the biggest killer, find something, anything that is breakeven at full commission and throw as much money at it as you can to reduce your commission rate for this method.
You will be truly amazed at the massive difference it makes to the profit.

Like anything, you need to work out how much of your bank to stake to withstand a series of losses.

Personally I have never had a negative year, I've also never had a negative month, but that's because all my eggs aren't in one basket.
I diversify through UK IRE and AUS racing.

Cheers for your insight BTO (still not sure why you would reveal a winning strategy still!)

What % of your bank would you generally use on each race - 1%,2%?.

Yes BTO, thanks for the theory. Some of us can see, at least, that it would work.

Any filter, be it football or horses has to have logic, without
logic it probably comes from back fitting, and will fail. The logic
also needs to be something no one else has noticed, as common
knowledge is useless for obvious reasons, and is the diff between
the 85% and the 15%. Sorry for being pedantic (or perdandic as some
one labelled me!)

regarding the subject of this thread laying favorites well there is some virtue to this and the reason for it is as plain as the nose on your face.

The common betting model of bookmakers laying favorites is tailor made to profit from favorites
for one simple reason, the majority of money is bet on the first 3 favorites.

The problem with laying all favorites is that in more open races where there is no strong fancy then market forces will level out a favorite where more of the smart money is going so some races it will be unprofitable laying the favorite.

I have mentioned how one can profit from laying favourites in another thread and its cast iron.

Heres how it works

1.....buy a paper or racing post or look on-line for the top say dozen strong fancies of the day.

2.....Make sure the fancies are in top races, open looking races, and that they look to your
glancing eye rather on the skinny side pricewise, chances are they will be as this runners will be targeted by the main high street bookmakers and will be backed heavily by the masses in the bookmakers.

3.....decide a maximum price in your view that you lay it at, also try to get a feel for what the realistic price is for that runner and to win that race based on some research
4.....when the markets open for these runners the bookmakers will flag as they already expect that
punters are placing this runner in a lot of the multiple bets and will send office money down to trackside to hammer the sp price.

5.....try to lay the runner as late as possible if the price seems to be going down


And there you have it, by targeting the same runners as the bookmaker you will be laying at small prices with much less risk and probably the hardest races will be involved, the more money is on the highlighted runner then the closer to sp the price will be.


Its worked for bookmakers for many years and it can work for you, also these markets it may well be worth backing a runner as the prices will be better for the rest of the market.

There are no 'click and win' systems on betfair.

Proven wrong.

When ?

Many times in this thread by others who went to the trouble of checking.
It's all in the Betfair data, proveable.

Beat, Why don't you add US Racing?

BTO

Was your reply of 'Proven wrong' to SHAPESHIFTER or bf_fananatic?

I'm hoping it was to SHAPESHIFTER

Thx

Have I mentioned that ITCANTBEDONE?

yes

Shapeshifter.

Shapeshifter.

Some years ago I did some work which seemed to come to the opposite conclusion to bf fanatic. It seemed to me that the strongly fancied horses drifted more often than not and were good value when they did. I had a plan that I would lay them earlier on and if they drifted then back them for the same stake and get a small free bet, and if they did not drift then run the bet and take the risk.
It was a long time ago and at the time made a little money.

ttt ....Might be of interest to recent thread started....

phil has a good point  laying favs on heavy ground 6.2 per cent profit