Feb 12, 2018 -- 9:24AM, dave1357 wrote:
On average laying a £10 liability at 1.5 on a horse with a 50% chance of winning will return almost 10 times more profit than laying the same liability on a horse at 20 that has already fallen.I would say that "profit" in betting is ROI. If you lay a horse that can't win it doesn't matter what odds it is, the ROI is always 100% and that is the maximum possible for a lay.
this is key.
this is why backing will always give you a better roi than laying.
Feb 13, 2018 -- 1:57PM, Owmybrainhurtz wrote:
I did wonder whether laying golfers at 1000 could be profitable, but after a player traded at 1000 on the US tour last week and won, that doesn't seem a good idea.
I saw a lay of 1000 come in on a south American football game just before Xmas. Laying long shots is just Russian roulette and the road to the poor house eventually and suspect the long term value is backing them rather than laying for small stakes
Mar 17, 2018 -- 11:25PM, betting_masta wrote:
the only way you can beat the book is to devise a system which gives you a reliable indicator of the percentage of something happening, and then only betting on that occurring if you are getting "value". over time if your system is correct you'll make money. that's all bookmakers do. overround. they make
Mar 25, 2018 -- 7:42PM, wolf3011 wrote:
224 races is a tiny eg, I ran through an entire season of French football laying the draw ( that old duck) in the second tier this season and found over 50 points profit. Using the same system the season before provides a similar tally loss so you need thousands of races/ games to test something which is why when laying longs odds it could literally takes years to get enough bets in order to ascertain if there is an " edge". I remember a couple of idiots last year claiming they had found value backing 1.02 shots on Icelandic football with the proof being 3 winning bets.Laying 20-1 shots , all it would take is a freak week of 3 coming in and you need 60 plus lays just to claw back losses
I don't know why but reading your post made me think of Towcester and that steep uphill finish. I would think there must be ways of avoiding some 20/1 winners without affecting profits but I simply don't have the time, so I keep tinkering around with the football for now.
Also, I don't want to be placing so many bets.
Mar 26, 2018 -- 3:24AM, DFCIRONMAN wrote:
When you say 20-1 shots..............DO YOU MEAN 20 SP ????If so, then obviously BF SP odds are far higher than 20-1 SP....... etc etc etcIf you lay a 20-1 SP horse on BF and lay IR at 20-1 SP (21 BF), then you will lay the winners now and then.....and more likely not catch the lays on "losers", as their odds IR will be up to 1001.Please clarify what you mean.
That's a very good point DFC,
The markets don't stop do they.
What if you lay a 20 and the price tumbles at the off? Or vice versa.
Maybe best to watch for 20s on the slide.
This interesting stuff guys.
Keep it coming.
Mar 26, 2018 -- 4:58AM, trebor wrote:
Hi DFCIRONMAN, all of them are horses that started at 21 on Betfair, odds vary from 3 that started at 7/1 up to 9 that started at 20/1 at ISP, there are no IR prices included at all.A couple of other figures to go with the 115.85 pts profit from laying, over the same period you would have lost 170.80 pts backing these same horses on Betfair, and lost 305 pts at ISP.
115 points profit equates to just 6 of those 20-1 shots coming in which over a random time could well occur, not that impressive avoiding 6 winners really is it as in a bad year you could have over ten meaning your banks wiped out
Mar 27, 2018 -- 9:47AM, ericster wrote:
Might it be worth looking at laying odds between say 12 to 24/5. Every one layed makes laying the winner a little less painful and surely, on the basis that there Must be a lot of winners at lower odds, well?Just a thought.
If the odds are accurate and statistically they are on betfair, whats it matter whether you lay at 12, 20 or 200? If you have no edge its completely irrelevant .