Back to Lay or Lay to Back?

Back 2 lay reason you can only loss what you stake ie if you stake is £30 you can have 4 winning trades and then on trade goes again you and all you loss is a single stake   lay to back you could have 3 winning trades and then you could loss £300 in one trade  only my opinion but then what do I know Im only new here

Surely it depends on which way you think the market is going to go? 

there's the kicker , predicting the market movement !

this is groundbreaking stuff

I prefer to Lay then Back because the majority prefer to Back to Lay.

Thin, most people are backers, buyers etc,
they like things to happen rather than the
other way, no goals, low corners etc, but
I'm not sure about backing to lay..other
than if they get stuck with something they
prefer it to be a back. Does that make sense?

Its psychologically less of a risk to first back something and then lay it rather than the other way round.

It depends on what you are doing. If you back a side to win
and they go a goal down between the back and lay bets then
that is not good, but good if doing the opposite. As I said,
it depends on what you are doing.

golden words

If it's football then lay to back. If nothing happens then odds will go out and can back for profit. You can't do that the other way round.

Charlie, What happens when your 'lay' scores first?

Ken
No disrespect but it's called betting. It's the opposite of when the lay concedes first. If we could all get it right all of the time then betting wouldn't exist.  The OP asked whether to back to lay or other way round. I gave my reason.

And at the risk of after timing.  I laid Stevenage at 1.89 and backed at 4.5 but also laid BTTS at 1.76 which I couldn't lay off for a profit (and has now lost) and over 2.5 at 1.6 which I could have made a profit on but didn't.

I could now lay off over 2.5 for a profit but will wait to see if odds go below 1.5.

Football betting is different to HR betting and should be treated as such as from the kick off there is a winnner that has to be usurped by a change in the game i.e. a goal divided by time remaining. With HR from the off all the prices are moving in different directions based on market opinion in play.

Good and interesting responses nonetheless, thanks and apologies if I have stated the obvious to some in my previous post.

Charlie
Joined: 01 Dec 01
Replies: 768
    20 Nov 14 16:32   

If it's football then lay to back. If nothing happens then odds will go out and can back for profit. You can't do that the other way round.

Charlie, sorry to ruffle you but the above suggests that one way
is better than the other, and that is not the case as you haven't
answered the question, other than make some reference to 'betting'
truth is one way is no better than the other. BTW what you did in
the Stevenage game proves nothing.

Ken
Agree about Stevenage.
If the question is "which method would be best in your opinion and why? " In my opinion in football lay to back is best. As the game progresses a team's odds will, in general, increase (obviously I mean when no goals have been scored). This gives an opportunity to lay off for profit. If you back first this opportunity is not there.

If it's football then lay to back. If nothing happens then odds will go out and can back for profit. You can't do that the other way round.

Thanks I will try it on the football this weekend, think I will start with laying all the 1-0 and 0-1 and hope nothing happens and trade out after 30 mins, should make a good profit eh?

I should add an important caveat in that I'm not talking about random games. I'm only considering laying teams where I consider the odds too short and preferably the team are not great goal scorers. 

trebor
As you well know that's not what I meant.

I thought I was gonna make a fortune.

Take Leicester-Sunderland tomorrow.  Would you rather back Leicester at 2.16 or lay them at 2.18?

You may end up with a small fortune.  If you start with a large one

Just thought that's a daft example.
Would you rather lay Leicester at 2.18 or back Sunderland at 3.9? And the bet is one where you're laying off as per OP.

I'm only considering laying teams where I consider the odds too short and preferably the team are not great goal scorers

And your point is?

If it's football then lay to back. If nothing happens then odds will go out and can back for profit. You can't do that the other way round.

Arsenal went off at about 2.04 today.  They were 1.8 in running after about 15-20mins; the scoreline was 0-0.

Also, if one outcome's odds are going out, another's is coming in.  So depends which outcome you're on.  If you are laying a team, all you're actually doing is backing the other outcomes anyway.  It's a non-issue.

Charlie, my point was a little complicated
to type and post on here, sorry about that!
GL with what you do.

Nov 23, 2014 -- 5:22PM, kenilworth wrote:

Charlie, my point was a little complicatedto type and post on here, sorry about that!GL with what you do.

Come on, Ken. You've spent a lot of time articulating that you don't understand the exchange concept properly, so laying/trading will always be anathema to you.

You need to be honest with that when picking up others on similar points.

CJ70, I only bet when I believe the odds
are in my favour, if you don't understand
that simple philosophy, that is your problem.

Each method doesn't return the same.

At odds above 2, backing to lay returns more for the same stake.

Bigger risk with laying if same unit stake, but of course you can always lay for a smaller stake. But your potential profit will be smaller if so.

I agree with Ken

Perhaps I should change my opinion on what I consider is best to what I prefer to do.

Nov 24, 2014 -- 5:22PM, kenilworth wrote:

CJ70, I only bet when I believe the odds are in my favour, if you don't understand that simple philosophy, that is your problem.

You are replying to something I haven't written again.

harlie
Joined: 01 Dec 01
Replies: 785
    24 Nov 14 18:54   

I agree with Ken

Perhaps I should change my opinion on what I consider is best to what I prefer to do.

Charlie, a good philosophy. Bet only on what you are comfortable with,
personally I prefer to be a seller rather than a buyer, a simple
example is say, 'overs/unders', I only bet 'unders' when the odds
seem to be in my favour. When 'overs' seem best I don't bet. I think
you know what I mean.

aaah more gold from the guvnor,  "I only bet 'unders' when the odds
seem to be in my favour", some may the king really just spouts the bleeding obvious but I say Kenny just keeps it simple, he is "Mr Simple" and hes forgotten more than the rest of etc, but I hear that's now treatable with modern drugs

ga
I've no gripe with you or anyone and I enjoy reading the SADO thread.

Ken is a good guy who is saying more than you quote.  He probably has forgot more than most people know on here. And not for bad reasons.

Nov 26, 2014 -- 3:53PM, Charlie wrote:

gaI've no gripe with you or anyone and I enjoy reading the SADO thread.Ken is a good guy who is saying more than you quote.  He probably has forgot more than most people know on here. And not for bad reasons.

Surely one would just need to read Racing Post back issues to remember them again? ;)

When 'overs' seem best I don't bet. I think you know what I mean.

I don't.  If overs is value, do you pass up on the bet simply because the selection wouldn't be unders?

If overs is value, do you pass up on the bet simply because the selection wouldn't be unders?

I am not comfortable backing, for example 'overs', correct.
I prefer to be betting against things happening,
I trust selling rather than buying, the market encourages
the latter.

another sprinkling of golddust from the guvnor....more

Ken - what's the difference between backing overs at evens and laying unders at evens?

No diff except you don't see it, do you?
Surprised you ask.

I don't see what?  You'll have to dumb things down for me, ken.  As far as I can see, you say that you only like laying bets and not backing.  In a two runner market, there's no material difference between the two.  So what am I misunderstanding?

In a two runner market, there's no material difference between the two.

Your words above, so why are you asking the question in your
previous post?

And you wonder why people say you don't understand the exchange concept.