You guys keep going on about if i was offered 2.25 about a coin flip nonsence. Who is offering u this? The only value i've seen is when 13 of us were down the pub and we played killer pool £10 a man winner takes all and i knew i was in the top 3 players.
I think that is what I did,or something similar,you see I did not believe the book solution was accurate.I assumed it an approximation. I managed to get it to 0.039 and change. My mate has put it up on the web and managed to find half a dozen wizards who worked it out with all manner of methods.But the solution given beats them all hands down and,surprise surprise they all agree. I am glad you like it.
I think that is what I did,or something similar,you see I did not believe the book solution was accurate.I assumed it an approximation.I managed to get it to 0.039 and change.My mate has put it up on the web and managed to find half a dozen wizards
I got .044507, but then maybe I misunderstood the problem. Are you excluding ANY consecutive numbers apart from the 3? So 1,2,3,5,6,49 wouldn't count because 5 and 6 are consecutive?
I got .044507, but then maybe I misunderstood the problem. Are you excluding ANY consecutive numbers apart from the 3? So 1,2,3,5,6,49 wouldn't count because 5 and 6 are consecutive?
No ror,3 and only 3 consecutive as in the examples. eg 1 8 12 13 14 23 counts but 1 8 12 13 14 15 would not count. It is wicked,if I told you how long we worked on it you would die laughing.
No ror,3 and only 3 consecutive as in the examples.eg1 8 12 13 14 23 counts but1 8 12 13 14 15 would not count.It is wicked,if I told you how long we worked on it you would die laughing.
I have had a go at 3 or more consecutive and that comes to,I think,0.041017 . Someone put that up earlier and they must have got the answer to the original problem but not realised it.
I have had a go at 3 or more consecutive and that comes to,I think,0.041017 .Someone put that up earlier and they must have got the answer to the original problem but not realised it.
I think I've got it cracked now, both with and without allowing 123789 etc.
I've not crunched the numbers yet but I'll post my method when I get home.
Basically it will involve picking a set of 3 then assuming a blank, restricting the numbers left. Then to correct double counting you consider triplets after (but only after) your triplet. If you count 123789 as a triplet you deduct this. If you don't you deduct it twice.
I think I've got it cracked now, both with and without allowing 123789 etc.I've not crunched the numbers yet but I'll post my method when I get home.Basically it will involve picking a set of 3 then assuming a blank, restricting the numbers left. The
ror,If I have understood you, I do not think that will work as you will still be left with sets comprised of 3 consecutive + 2 consecutive + 1 solitary. What we are looking for are the selections with only 3 numbers adjacent the remaining three must be solitary .
ror,If I have understood you, I do not think that will work as you will still be left with sets comprised of 3 consecutive + 2 consecutive + 1 solitary.What we are looking for are the selections with only 3 numbers adjacent the remaining three must
Really? That isn't even allowed? That seems quite bizarre to me from the original question, and I suppose requires a completely different approach.
Time for ax beer and a rethink. :)
Really? That isn't even allowed? That seems quite bizarre to me from the original question, and I suppose requires a completely different approach.Time for ax beer and a rethink. :)
If Daniel has a milkshake on one side of a room, and Eli has a milkshake on the other side of the room, and Daniel has a long straw from reaching all the way acroooossss the room and into Eli's milkshake. What happens?
If Daniel has a milkshake on one side of a room, and Eli has a milkshake on the other side of the room, and Daniel has a long straw from reaching all the way acroooossss the room and into Eli's milkshake. What happens?
Thanks Trev,I was beginning to wonder if I had not made it clear enough. Here is the solution. First we need to realize what we are after so let's look at the situation where we want 6 non consecutive numbers from the 49. Clearly we need 5 "spacers" to make the 6 non consecutive. It is not immediately obvious that this is the same as taking 6 numbers from 44,49 minus the 5 spacers. It is however a fact and can be demonstrated to any one who understands (n)C(r) notation. Once this is grasped it is easy to move on to the 3 consecutive problem. Here we have 4 groups 3,1,1,1 1,3,1,1 1,1,3,1 1,1,1,3 therefore we will need 3 spacers. You will be screaming by now that the foolish dunlaying has forgotten that we do not have identically sized groups.But,if we can abstract the spacers we can also do it for the 2 extra numbers that will make up our group of 3.We will then add them after to any one of 4 numbers to satisfy the rquired conditions. Putting all this together we then have 4*(49-3-2)C(4) all divided by (49)C(6) which is 4*(44)C(4)/(49)C(6)=0.0388...
Thanks Trev,I was beginning to wonder if I had not made it clear enough.Here is the solution.First we need to realize what we are after so let's look at the situation where we want 6 non consecutive numbers from the 49.Clearly we need 5 "spacers" to
I'm not convinced the answer can be that symmetrical because of the following.
If your 3 in a row is 123 then there are 45 places the other 3 can go, but if your 3 in a row is 234 then there are only 44. Perhaps this is accounted for automatically but it feels odd the answer should then still be so neat.
Likewise when considering the individual ones, if you draw 27 and 30, there are more gaps the last cannot be than if you draw 27 and 29.
Perhaps this is accounted for by only specifying you need a gap, but again it feels strange!
I follow your argument though and it is convincing, it is just the boundaries that are worrying me.
I'm not convinced the answer can be that symmetrical because of the following.If your 3 in a row is 123 then there are 45 places the other 3 can go, but if your 3 in a row is 234 then there are only 44. Perhaps this is accounted for automatically but
ror, I do not blame you for doubting it as I spent months trying to disprove it. I,eventually,got my head around the concept by disregarding the numbers,finding the patterns and then numbering the patterns. By the way my mate got a NASA chap to do it.Of course he solved the problem easily enough but still cannot understand this solution.Needless to add that I could not understand his method .
ror,I do not blame you for doubting it as I spent months trying to disprove it.I,eventually,got my head around the concept by disregarding the numbers,finding the patterns and then numbering the patterns.By the way my mate got a NASA chap to do it.Of
Value was the origin of this tread and got lead onto a different path partly by me. The same question is what and is value there, there ? For me yes as i have an advantage as for most i do not think so.
Value was the origin of this tread and got lead onto a different path partly by me.The same question is what and is value there, there ?For me yes as i have an advantage as for most i do not think so.
YUP ----- VALUE was meant to what thread was about....not DENSA mentality on MENSA type questions..............
How much VALUE is considered VALUE when say you have an EVENS money SP horse in say your top 2 rated.......................I say NONE.
IF it is TOP RATED of 2....then "possibly" it is VALUE........but I find it hard to accept that.........
I have umpteen ODDS ON favourites being top rated....and generally they win when top rated.....BUT you would expect that anyway.......
VALUE is not ODDS on SHOTS unless you are LAYING em..................
What margin do you consider VALUE when say you have a 5-4 SP horse in top 2 rated???????? Do you BACK it or just ignore it?
YUP ----- VALUE was meant to what thread was about....not DENSA mentality on MENSA type questions..............How much VALUE is considered VALUE when say you have an EVENS money SP horse in say your top 2 rated.......................I say NONE.IF it
I completely disagree. Maybe it is because I do sports betting not horses, but most the time I think the market is wrong is on short odds.
Quite often a price should be 1.17 but is 1.3 or something because the price is being held up, by either people trying to dictate the market or people laying to green out.
Either that or people underestimate just how dominant a favourite is. I've made good money this year laying little mix to be evicted from xf this year. I am essentially backing at about 1.1 that they stay but the real odds were much much shorter. Even had they ever been b2 they would have been saved against most others!
I completely disagree. Maybe it is because I do sports betting not horses, but most the time I think the market is wrong is on short odds.Quite often a price should be 1.17 but is 1.3 or something because the price is being held up, by either people
ror - HORSES ....not sports betting........BACKING at short odds is generally CRAZY......."short" being at level The Investor 2 indicates above!
If a horse is say 1.25-1 ( 5/4 SP) and is in my top 2 rated .....apparently if i back it I will generally win.......
No way on this planet I could BACK any horse at 1.01 ...or up to 1.05 BF odds.........and feel "comfortable" at that level.............
Mind you LAYING a CS at FOOTBALL at say 10-1 I feel "comfortable" with........but I have NO EDGE on FOOTBALL.................and with FOOTBALL the odds are drastically different to HORSE race betting odds.........
The ones like TheInvestor2 are mainly LAYERS i suspect.........who operate with BOTS.......who I have no respect for whatsoever...............as it is purely a mechanical process on which they base their bets.
If I am "wrong" that you are basically av top LAYER TI2.........then I apologise................However, i suspect I am spot on!
G M the nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ror - HORSES ....not sports betting........BACKING at short odds is generally CRAZY......."short" being at level The Investor 2 indicates above!If a horse is say 1.25-1 ( 5/4 SP) and is in my top 2 rated .....apparently if i back it I will generally
I find it amusing how you think there are layers and backers on Betfair. There aren't, there are price makers and price takers.
Any time you take a price you arec giving away value to the person who made the price.
This is true whether you are laying or backing. The way to make money, (discounting in running) is to offer prices not take them.
Laying and backing are the same thing. If you lay team A to win you are simply backing the draw and team b in a dutched manner.
You say that football odds are different to horse odds, what does that mean? You're comfortable betting on a very likely event in football (the cs not coming in) but not comfortable betting on a likely event in racing (the horse winning, at similar odds.).
Here's a tip: if you are uncomfortable, then others probably are too, causing them to wrongly oppose the price. Doing what is least comfortable is usually a good indication of value.
Always stake sensibly, don't overstake, that is where people go wrong. If you usually bet £20, then bet it on the 1.02. Sure, you make 40p less commission, Profit is profit. Don't suddenly stake £1000 because you want to win a usual stake.
Again, if you think backing the 1.02 with a usual stake is "pointless" because of the lack of money then that means others aren't backing it for illogical reasons which again means price inflation. And that means opportunity and value.
Shorts odds backing is only the road to the poorhouse if you follow undern and his all in examples, but he is just demonstrating gambler's ruin.
It's only picking up pennies from under a steam-roller if you can't afford the down swings. Price in 10+ losses into your bank and you should find that short odds backing / long odds laying (remember these are the same thing!) can be very profitable.
I find it amusing how you think there are layers and backers on Betfair. There aren't, there are price makers and price takers.Any time you take a price you arec giving away value to the person who made the price.This is true whether you are laying o
Any time you take a price you arec giving away value to the person who made the price
Are you joking?
This could only be true if the midpoint of the best available back and lay prices were always fair value.
Any time you take a price you arec giving away value to the person who made the priceAre you joking?This could only be true if the midpoint of the best available back and lay prices were always fair value.
Contrarian: I didn't word that well, I tried 3 times to write it.
You're giving away *some* value to the price maker. Hopefully you still have some left behind.
I also tried to say I'm talking about pre-event, not in-running. With in-running you have more information when you're taking than they had when making.
This occasionally can happen pre-off on injury/teams news, but I'm talking about punters just taking prices there, when you're better off putting money up on "the other side" and waiting. You'll get matched eventually unless you expect the market to correct.
Contrarian: I didn't word that well, I tried 3 times to write it.You're giving away *some* value to the price maker. Hopefully you still have some left behind.I also tried to say I'm talking about pre-event, not in-running. With in-running you have m
Still have to disagree. Even pre-event, there are lots of quite significant mispricings to be found.
This occasionally can happen pre-off on injury/teams news, but I'm talking about punters just taking prices there, when you're better off putting money up on "the other side" and waiting. You'll get matched eventually unless you expect the market to correct.
I agree with you here, assuming that you're advising a recreational punter on what to do with his money. But someone who has actually priced up the event for themselves, and then discovered that the Betfair prices on offer are too large/small, should obviously take those prices.
I do this all the time on the football matches I trade, especially if I can see that the price has been moving in the direction that I consider to be the 'right' one. (So, I am less likely to get matched if I just leave an offer up).
Ror,Still have to disagree. Even pre-event, there are lots of quite significant mispricings to be found.This occasionally can happen pre-off on injury/teams news, but I'm talking about punters just taking prices there, when you're better off putting
ror 03 Dec 11 10:35 Contrarian: I didn't word that well, I tried 3 times to write it.
You're giving away *some* value to the price maker. Hopefully you still have some left behind.
I also tried to say I'm talking about pre-event, not in-running. With in-running you have more information when you're taking than they had when making.
This occasionally can happen pre-off on injury/teams news, but I'm talking about punters just taking prices there, when you're better off putting money up on "the other side" and waiting. You'll get matched eventually unless you expect the market to correct. ====================================================================
PRE-EVENT betting is more "understandable" re betting at such LOW ODDS......I agree.
IR betting at short odds ( I mean from 1.01 to 1.05)with HORSES would be "crazy" for punter on here who does not have "fast pictures" etc........
IR betting when say it is a NH race and you can clearly see a horse running well that , before the event you considered was a possible winner, and BACKING it at "good" odds makes far more "sense" than betting at the short odds end of market.( eg Drybrook Bedouin was got at 25sBF odds IR in a 4 mile race approximately half way through race) NOW 25s is clearly VALUE compared to those BACKING at 1.01 to 1.05 near finish!
ror 03 Dec 11 10:35 Contrarian: I didn't word that well, I tried 3 times to write it.You're giving away *some* value to the price maker. Hopefully you still have some left behind.I also tried to say I'm talking about pre-event, not in-running. With
For such an astute mathematician and statistical ability, I find it strange you have come up with such misnomers.
Any time you take a price you arec giving away value to the person who made the price.
On what basis? What one man sees as value, another will see as not value. The whole basis of the success of a betting exchange. Under your proposal, every time you make a bet it is poor value, because someone else has put up the price thinking it's value.
This is true whether you are laying or backing. The way to make money, (discounting in running) is to offer prices not take them.
Anything over $1.20 on Black Caviar was a value bet according to me. Only problem was, I couldn't get matched, because someone else had a different concept of value.
Laying and backing are the same thing. If you lay team A to win you are simply backing the draw and team b in a dutched manner.
They are far from the same thing. Try backing all favourites. Then try laying all but the favourite. You might be very surprised at the difference
Shorts odds backing is only the road to the poorhouse if you follow undern and his all in examples, but he is just demonstrating gambler's ruin.
It all depends on the value you get, I'll take $1.10 about a $1.05 shot all day long and never see a poor house.
Price in 10+ losses into your bank and you should find that short odds backing / long odds laying (remember these are the same thing!) can be very profitable.
I suggest you reconsider your whole lay vs back analogy, run simulations because they are definitely not the same outcome.
For such an astute mathematician and statistical ability, I find it strange you have come up with such misnomers.Any time you take a price you arec giving away value to the person who made the price.On what basis?What one man sees as value, another w
I don't need to run simulations to show that dutching all outcomes except 1 is the same as laying. It is so clearly true.*
*subject to outcomes not changing or presence of an any other.
Value is not subjective. There is an unknown true probability p_ and odds offered at p. The difference between these is value.
Whether or not their current value is positive or negative, by backing 1.96 in a 1.96/1.98 market, you are letting someone lay at 1.96. So they are getting extra value, whether or not you think their current value is positive or negative they get better value than if you put up a price and wait to get matched. If you put up a price then if it gets matched then you are getting better odds, which increases your value and therefore decreases theirs.
Going back to your final point, if you lay to a set liability, and if you believe in sensible staking you should, then there is no difference between backing a short odds runner or laying the rest of the field.
Again, I'm talking about sportsbook where you don't have non-runners messing things up.
I don't need to run simulations to show that dutching all outcomes except 1 is the same as laying. It is so clearly true.**subject to outcomes not changing or presence of an any other.Value is not subjective. There is an unknown true probability p_ a
Let us suppose that we have a market with 4 outcomes, A,B,C,D.
Let us also assume that the market is close to 100% overround.
Let us define a,b,c,d as follows.
Pr(A)=a, Pr(B)=b, etc.
Let us say you stake to a liability of x.
Wlog (without loss of generality) we can say a is the shortest odds.
Backing A means you win (1/a-1)x if it happens, lose x if it does not.
Now let us look at laying.
Let us have 3 lay amounts m,n,q.
Laying B to a liability of x means that (b-1)*m-n-q=x We can substitute the same for C and D. (c-1)n-m-q=x (d-1)q-m-n=x
So how much profit does this generate on A? m+n+q.
I've got to go now but I'll finish the proof later.
BTO your maths fails you again.Let us suppose that we have a market with 4 outcomes, A,B,C,D.Let us also assume that the market is close to 100% overround.Let us define a,b,c,d as follows.Pr(A)=a, Pr(B)=b, etc.Let us say you stake to a liability of x
ror 03 Dec 11 07:23 Laying and backing are the same thing. If that were true then all would be equal but this is not the truth. Far from it and thank you for thinking along those lines as it helps create this dissociation to the true market which is funded by like minded..
ror 03 Dec 11 07:23 Laying and backing are the same thing.If that were true then all would be equal but this is not the truth.Far from it and thank you for thinking along those lines as it helps create this dissociation to the true market which
Have not RATED the race......Not using my "system" currently as needs certain factors to be updated......
Just at a glance it will all depend how fast the going is...or slow....or if STANDARD......A minefield of a race BEING THE FIRST RACE OF NIGHT!
Gl
Have not RATED the race......Not using my "system" currently as needs certain factors to be updated......Just at a glance it will all depend how fast the going is...or slow....or if STANDARD......A minefield of a race BEING THE FIRST RACE OF NIGHT!Gl
A game of football in Europe, relegation contenders v mid table opponents:
Home team: P16 W2 D6 L8 gf13 ga22 (at home P7 W1 D3 L3 gf6 ga10) only home win against the bottom team and away win against 3rd bottom.
Away team: P16 W8 D1 L7 gf32 ga25 (on the road P8 W3 D0 L5 gf13 ga14) 3 of the 5 away defeats against top 4 teams.
League has a H-D-A split of roughly 48-26-26% and goal expectation around 2.7 per match.
With this basic information, is anyone prepared to put up a general price range, or even suggest which team has an edge, if any?
Answers on a postcard please...
(oh, and before anyone gets excited the game has already been played.)
In search of value...A game of football in Europe, relegation contenders v mid table opponents:Home team: P16 W2 D6 L8 gf13 ga22 (at home P7 W1 D3 L3 gf6 ga10) only home win against the bottom team and away win against 3rd bottom.Away team: P16 W8 D
Ok, I've rewritten my proof from scratch so it is clearer. I will prove it here for the case with 4 runners but if anyone is boring enough to want the general case I can do it I trust this not to be the case since I'm probably the only person who cares about this but proving BTO wrong again is kinda fun.
So let us take a 100% market in a 4 result market.
Let us say these are priced a,b,c,d.
We know therefore 1/a + 1/b + 1/c + 1/d = 1
Therefore we can rewrite 1/a as 1-(1/b+1/c+1/d)=(bcd-(bc+cd+bd))/(bcd)
Now let us lay b,c, and d.
Let us lay b with the amount cd. And lay c with the amount bd. Also lay d with the amount bc.
If event a wins the market then we profit bc+cd+bd, as all 3 lays were good. If event b wins, we lose (b-1)cd-(bc+bd) =bcd-(bc+cd+bd) If event c wins, we lose (c-1)bd-(bc+cd) =bcd-(bc+cd+bd) If event d wins we lose (d-1)bc-(cd+bd)=bcd-(bc+cd+bd)
So laying in this way, we win bc+cd+bd if a wins, and a fixed amount if it loses. We now need to check if backing is the same.
If we back a with that amount, we clearly lose the same in each of the three losing cases. In the winning case, how much do we win?
We win bcd(bcd-(bc+cd+bd))/(bcd-(bc+cd+bd))-(bcd-(bc+cd+bd)) as this is a times stake, minus our stake.
This cancels to bcd-(bcd-(bc+cd+bd)) which equals bc+cd+bd.
So backing we win the same as when laying when the liability is the same.
Therefore backing a is identical to laying b,c,d when working to a set liability.
BTO you need to stop fighting the maths.
Ok, I've rewritten my proof from scratch so it is clearer. I will prove it here for the case with 4 runners but if anyone is boring enough to want the general case I can do itI trust this not to be the case since I'm probably the only person who care
ror 05 Dec 11 13:41 Therefore backing a is identical to laying b,c,d when working to a set liability. While the math is true in practice it is not. Take for an example a 12 runner event.If your opinion was to be against the fav would you lay it or back the runners that have a chance.The problem with laying is you are backing every other runner .And depending on your judgement you will not achieve the correct return for the result.
ror 05 Dec 11 13:41 Therefore backing a is identical to laying b,c,d when working to a set liability.While the math is true in practice it is not.Take for an example a 12 runner event.If your opinion was to be against the fav would you lay it or
In markets with some no hopers then things like minimum bet size can get in your way on here, I agree. However, my point was to show that fundamentally there is no difference between backing and laying.
This was because some people were using "layer" as a pejorative term!
In markets with some no hopers then things like minimum bet size can get in your way on here, I agree. However, my point was to show that fundamentally there is no difference between backing and laying.This was because some people were using "layer"
DFCIRONMAN 05 Dec 11 16:50 Where does it say no hoper Shirataki (IRE) RP Virtually pulled up when favourite for handicap debut in June and subsequently left Mark Johnston stable for 1,800GBP; recent stable debut not completely devoid of encouragement but improvement required now dropped back in trip (from 1m4f).
DFCIRONMAN 05 Dec 11 16:50 Where does it say no hoperShirataki (IRE)RPVirtually pulled up when favourite for handicap debut in June and subsequently left Mark Johnston stable for 1,800GBP; recent stable debut not completely devoid of encourageme
DFC - They were only "no hopers" if you are a blind slave to figures/times/ratings!
Only 3 course winners in the field (from 14 runners) - so as the second and the third were two of them, they were hardly "no hopers".
As for the winner - he was sent off 11/4 Fav for what was (arguably) a better race than this just two runs ago - and having only had 5 career starts, was one of only two horses in the race that was not fully exposed (imo).
Burn your ratings and open your eyes to the bigger picture.
DFC - They were only "no hopers" if you are a blind slave to figures/times/ratings!Only 3 course winners in the field (from 14 runners) - so as the second and the third were two of them, they were hardly "no hopers". As for the winner - he was sent o
I had the winner ..and 2nd......................small stakes...... Had winner to place too
I never called them no hopers........just quoting what was previously posted by ror !
MM --- trust you will learn to read between the lines on my post and previous posts
I had the winner ..and 2nd......................small stakes...... Had winner to place tooI never called them no hopers........just quoting what was previously posted by ror !MM --- trust you will learn to read between the lines on my post and previo
Horse Racing > Ling 5th Dec : 1m2f Hcap Showing 1 - 10 of 10 Selections Selection Odds Stake(£) Bid type Placed Profit/loss(£) Alfraamsey 5.20 3.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:25 -3.00 Alfraamsey 5.47 24.00 Lay 05-Dec-11 15:29 24.00 Gee Major 6.80 3.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:29 -3.00 Heading To First 21.00 2.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:26 -2.00 Love In The Park * 11.40 5.00 Back -5.00 Olimamu 24.09 6.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:22 -6.00 Prince Of Thebes 18.50 3.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:29 -3.00 Russian Storm 27.00 2.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:26 -2.00 Shirataki 60.00 2.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:27 118.00 Warbond 32.00 2.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:27 -2.00 *Average odds: On Off Back subtotal: 92.00 Lay subtotal: 24.00 Market subtotal: 116.00 Commission @ 4.7%: 5.45 Net Market Total: 110.55
Horse Racing > Ling 5th Dec : 1m2f Hcap Showing 1 - 10 of 10 SelectionsSelection Odds Stake(£) Bid type Placed Profit/loss(£)Alfraamsey 5.20 3.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:25 -3.00Alfraamsey 5.47 24.00
Horse Racing > Ling 5th Dec : To Be Placed Showing 1 - 3 of 3 Selections Selection Odds Stake(£) Bid type Placed Profit/loss(£) Love In The Park 3.18 4.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:23 -4.00 Olimamu 6.40 6.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:22 -6.00 Shirataki 16.00 3.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:27 45.00 *Average odds: On Off Back subtotal: 35.00 Lay subtotal: 0.00 Market subtotal: 35.00 Commission @ 4.71%: 1.65 Net Market Total: 33.35
Horse Racing > Ling 5th Dec : To Be Placed Showing 1 - 3 of 3 SelectionsSelection Odds Stake(£) Bid type Placed Profit/loss(£)Love In The Park 3.18 4.00 Back 05-Dec-11 15:23 -4.00Olimamu 6.40 6.00
ror 05 Dec 11 16:48 In markets with some no hopers then things like minimum bet size can get in your way on here, I agree. However, my point was to show that fundamentally there is no difference between backing and laying.
This was because some people were using "layer" as a pejorative term!
ror 05 Dec 11 16:48 In markets with some no hopers then things like minimum bet size can get in your way on here, I agree. However, my point was to show that fundamentally there is no difference between backing and laying.This was because some peopl
No probs MM.......can't blame you for reading my post the "wrong" way etc ....
Not using system of ratings ....just ad-libbing to keep "eye in"......
Not "burning" it yet.....Might in NEW YEAR if it fails....(Unlikely though that might beeeeeeeeeeeeeeee)
Gl with bets.
No probs MM.......can't blame you for reading my post the "wrong" way etc ....Not using system of ratings ....just ad-libbing to keep "eye in"......Not "burning" it yet.....Might in NEW YEAR if it fails....(Unlikely though that might beeeeeeeeeeeeeee
You can abc and xy and z as much as you like. Remember the story I told about the lady at the movies, unfortunately the same is true here. In a perfect world, in an EXACTLY 100% market, you may just have a leg to stand on, but in the real world, the betting world, backing and laying are not the same. Example, if you backed every horse over 500/1 pre off here, you'd actually make a small profit each and every year, but it isn't practical, because you would need too big a bank and be waiting forever for returns. Money is better invested in other areas. But the point is as above, and laying all favourites, you'd lose quite a bit each year. There is something in between favourites and rank outsiders which makes backing and laying two different animals. You need to understand how the markets are made up, what happens to the markets to make heavily supported horses which aren't favourite laying propositions in some cases, and backing propositions in other cases. By default, you are having more on the shorter supported fancies than the same odds bracketed fancies which have drifted. To explain further, there are two 6/1 chances. One has drifted from 3/1 to 6/1, the other has firmed from 12/1 to 6/1. So although they are the same price, they DO NOT have the same winning strike rate, ergo the returns are different. So it depends entirely on market movements and various other factors as to what way you are better to go. Laying the favourite in this situation, is not the same as backing every other horse and vicky verka! The liability will not be the same because of the other odds, so you won't get to 100 pounds laying every other horse, as you would 100 pounds the win on the favourite.
Think of it this way, the overround on markets favours layers. Whether it be .01% or 1% doesn't matter, it favours layers and not backers. Therefore backing more than one horse is worse than laying more than one horse. Laying the field is better than backing the field. Backing one horse or laying one horse is about the same, but favours layers still. This is purely mechanical, not taking into account anything more than price. I'll post an example shortly.
Ror,You can abc and xy and z as much as you like.Remember the story I told about the lady at the movies, unfortunately the same is true here.In a perfect world, in an EXACTLY 100% market, you may just have a leg to stand on, but in the real world, th
Think of it like you want to do this at Ladbrokes. You want to lay the favourite in 110% market. So you back every other runner in the market. You are taking unders about every other horse because of the market percentage thereby laying the favourite at prohibitive odds. Which is why unless someone has rock solid information about a horse, it is not practical. It has been done for years, but stables tended to wager on doubles etc rather than take the really bad odds of 110% books. And this is why it's not practical to lay horses with Ladbrokes. The same principle applies here, but to a minor percentage.
Think of it like you want to do this at Ladbrokes.You want to lay the favourite in 110% market.So you back every other runner in the market.You are taking unders about every other horse because of the market percentage thereby laying the favourite at
I'm not sure I'm getting your point BTO. If I lay anything, horses or a football team, it is just the inverse price of dutch betting all the other outcomes. If it gets out of line, the mkt. adjusts immediately. What am I missing here ?
I'm not sure I'm getting your point BTO.If I lay anything, horses or a football team, it is just the inverse price of dutch betting all the other outcomes.If it gets out of line, the mkt. adjusts immediately.What am I missing here ?
Froggy, In the extreme case where the bookies go evens each of three. If you back the other two, you're not laying evens about the fave.
It needs to be a 100% book for that to be true.
Froggy, In the extreme case where the bookies go evens each of three. If you back the other two, you're not laying evens about the fave.It needs to be a 100% book for that to be true.
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.
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
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.
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 si
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 ?
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
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.
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 mar
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.
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
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.
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 strik
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.
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.
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).
You could rewrite a football correct score market.Currently it's Score Back Lay 0-0 12.5 130-1 18.5 190-2 38 40...Score Yes No0-0 12.5 1.0830-1 18.5 1.0560-2 38 1.026In the second part all bets are backs (odds rounded), but you are betti
There are markets where you currently have the following:
(quick figures so excuse me if this isn't a valid market prices)
Tied match?
Back
Lay
Yes
90
200
No
1.01
1.02
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.
There are markets where you currently have the following:(quick figures so excuse me if this isn't a valid market prices) Tied match? Back Lay Yes 90 200 No 1.01 1.02 It's ridiculous, they should either have Yes with back and Lay (although thi