|
By:
Sorry Lori, but I can't understand that either.
Maybe it's a terminology thing. eg What do you mean by "--where the bookies go evens each of three " ? | |||||||||
|
By:
Three horse race, all are evens.
Kind of market you see at dodgy dog tracks. | |||||||||
|
By:
You mean I can dutch 3 horses to win each at 2.0 ?.
Couldn't lose then imo. What am I not getting ? | |||||||||
|
By:
Ah, you're in one of those moods, I'm off.
| |||||||||
|
By:
It does, but I'm not talking about laddies I'm talking about Betfair!
BTO you claim layers win on the overround but you are wring again. On Betfair layers lose out to underround on the laying side! This is exactly my point about price makers and price takers. The price makers can achieve an overround while laying and an underround while backing, which price takers (in a stable market) cannot. If you just take the lay price offered then what you are doing is nothing like what bookmakers do. And because as a percentage the ticks affect the favourite more, it is often better to lay all other results than take 1.02 in a 1.02/1.03 market for example. Also you are still confused about what I've been saying. You say that backing a 500/1 would take forever to get returns, but the point is you lay every other runner, you don't pick. The strike rate is identical to laying the fave. | |||||||||
|
By:
Sorry ignore that for obvious reasons.
| |||||||||
|
By:
Not a mood Lori, just dead tired.
| |||||||||
|
By:
Please don't leave the thread Lori, your cricket stuff has taught me you know your stuff and are sensible, I'd love to get your opinion on this stuff!
| |||||||||
|
By:
Ror,
It does, but I'm not talking about laddies I'm talking about Betfair! Yes and Betfair are Laddies with a smaller overround! BTO you claim layers win on the overround but you are wring again. On Betfair layers lose out to underround on the laying side! Only if you lay at the back price. And because as a percentage the ticks affect the favourite more, it is often better to lay all other results than take 1.02 in a 1.02/1.03 market for example. That's never the case. Also you are still confused about what I've been saying. You say that backing a 500/1 would take forever to get returns, but the point is you lay every other runner, you don't pick. The strike rate is identical to laying the fave. No it isn't or I'd be doing it and a millionaire if that were the case. And it isn't. I think you are confusing the maths of a 100% market, with the maths on here where the market can be close to, but is hardly ever 100% exactly. And that's why there is a difference longterm. | |||||||||
|
By:
I deal only in football betting scenarios where the lay price for example of the favourite is generally pretty much the same price as the inverse of the dutch price of betting on the non-fav and the draw.
If there is ever a discrepancy it is only ever a very small rounding error. I would have thought it is the same all over BF on all sports. Am I sorely mistaken on this ? | |||||||||
|
By:
If I am, can somebody post up a real life example for me to get my tired head around ?
| |||||||||
|
By:
FAFH, you are correct. BTO says the markets favour layers due to the small overround, but that logic can apply to backers as well as the "underround" on that side of the market is on average as favourable as the overround on the other side of the market is.
| |||||||||
|
By:
Tks Eddie, I can now put my swimming head down for a few hrs. of swell earned kip.
Been up all night doing various things, good and bad. | |||||||||
|
By:
To me, laying an outcome is the same as dutch backing all the alternative ones.
No more, no less. The advantage of laying lies simply in it being quicker, easier and less messy to do, particularly when there are many alternative outcomes. Also I can lay for a lower liability, if I want to, due to there being minimum betting amounts which dictate what liability I can dutch for. eg I can lay 2 units for a liability of 1 unit say, but I can't dutch bet a few outcomes for a liability of 1 unit. | |||||||||
|
By:
If the unit is 1 quid that is.
| |||||||||
|
By:
BTO the strike rate must be identical by definition.
If you lay the fave you lose when the fave wins and win on any other horse. If you back every other horse you lose when the fave wins and win on any other horse. Regardless of overround etc, the strike rate is identical. You don't seem to follow what I am saying. P.s You again claim I am wrong on a point of fact. In a two horse race you often see: 1.02/1.03 40/45 Laying the 45 is more profitable than backing the 1.02. Likewise, backing the 40 is better than laying the 1.03. The real money men make huge amounts when this happens as people "green out" laying the 1.03, while there is so much money on the 1.02/1.03 you're unlikely to get matched if you try to get matched across. | |||||||||
|
By:
Now that it is obvious that I am teaching my grandmother how to suck eggs, I'm outta here for a while.
Bets all in place for tonight, so no more reason to hang around. | |||||||||
|
By:
You could rewrite a football correct score market.
Currently it's Score Back Lay 0-0 12.5 13 0-1 18.5 19 0-2 38 40 ... Score Yes No 0-0 12.5 1.083 0-1 18.5 1.056 0-2 38 1.026 In the second part all bets are backs (odds rounded), but you are betting on the same thing. The differences between backing and laying are purely technical (still important though). | |||||||||
|
By:
There are markets where you currently have the following:
(quick figures so excuse me if this isn't a valid market prices)
It's ridiculous, they should either have Yes with back and Lay (although this doesn't support short odds very well) or Yes and No with only backing (preferable), the only reason I can think that betfair might not want to do that is because they make money cross-matching the market. | |||||||||
|
By:
If they had cross-matching on this market Yes would be 90 and 110.
|