General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 124 comments are related to the topic:
fao catflop
fao catflop
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 124
|
By:
" Twunt".
Now that I have to add to my vocabularly. Very useful for telling off colour jokes atqt our local church community meetings. |
|
By:
I am a massive fan of sport and i want become a professional gambler!
Why aren't you a professional already if you're so in the know? who said the top line Rob  |
|
By:
Martial Law falls at the last when clear
£1,004 matched @1.01 £3,145 unmatched So the people at the front of the queue had the chance of him falling on their side The people at the back would have been hoping he somehow lost an 8 length lead on the flat This is a classic case of the brain at work influencing the choices we make which are bad for us. In this particular case people had a huge advantage being at the front of the queue. In similar cases they would also, but does being at the front of the queue have more advantage more often. The answer is no. The number of times per year a horse leads by 8 lengths and falls at the last is insignificant to the number of times people pre empt an event anyway. It's quite likely now that fingers have been burnt, this result won't happen for quite some time. There is more merit in laying at $1.02 than $1.01, in fact the most profitable range is between $1.02 and $1.06. Anyone who backs a horse who hasn't cleared the last jump at those odds, needs to be checked into a clinic.  But then again, if they are first in the queue, there will be occasions especially in tight or unexpected finishes that they will be first matched on the winner and not on the loser. So they will lose where someone further down the queue would lose nothing. This happens far more often than the example of a faller at the last, ergo it balances out. |
|
By:
A couple of years ago I studied laying horse races at 1.01 to 1.06 in some depth, I have records covering about a years worth of races, but from memory most of the money waiting at 1.01 actually cancels before it's matched, i.e. there used to be around 10k waiting to lay at 1.01 on every race but a look at the graph would show only 3-4k matched after the race, so the big 1.01 layer didn't do it blind he cancelled most of it before it was ever matched.
What the horse markets are like these days I don't know, but back then I found that Friday to Sunday showed the most profit laying up to 1.06, and assumed it was because more recreational punters played on those days resulting in stiffer competition to grab the waiting lay money too early when the horse was really perhaps a 1.16 shot. That gave me the the strategy of loading up lays at 1.1 and below, then cancelling the lot as the price reached 1.3 or so, the theory being that I'd only get matched when a mad backer takes the bait too early giving me a good value lay, but you need the patience of a saint to play that game manually every race. I think it would be a profitable strategy if botted up though, I haven't looked for ages but wouldn't be surprised if someone was doing that. |
|
By:
I suspect the cross-matcher has now hindered laying at very low prices for the past couple of years (not sure when it officially started); whereas someone may have put a large amount previously on a horse that seems home and hosed, let's say at 1.1, nowadays it may only get matched down to a few points above 1.1, with the rest being matched as backs on the rest of the field.
The Saturday meetings still seems to show better results though, maybe because it's a lot more competitive with more races being decided close to the finish (as well as the recreational punters). |