Why is WOM nearly always bigger on the lay side?

[southcoastkev]

I apologise in advance if this is a stupid question! As far as i can see, the WOM on the lay side of pre race markets appears to be greater, the majority of the time, than on the back side. Can anybody explain to me why this is please?

[Korattt]

Hi Kev,

you mean on the Back side or Lay side?

money in the pink (in a reversed book) is money available to back - the back side, & money available to lay - the lay side in blue, well that's the way I look at it anyway?

[harsh]

Yes Same question comes into my mind ,as @Southcoastkev said.
Almost, in every race, in majority, Everybody want to lay horses. offcourse, there are backers but more inclination towards laying.
i think coz only one horse could win and rest will lose. so probability of losing is more, therefore laying activity more. (i guess)
any real explanation is welcome.

Cheers!

[Derek27]

I've never noticed a bias, I often see the WOM on the back side. The fact that only one horse can win is cancelled out by the fact that many backers will back one horse whereas layers may spread their investment across the field.

[harsh]

Yes True Derek

[ShaunWhite]

I think is simply that layers are more shrewd. The average layer will be asking for a price, the average punter will just take what's offered rather than leave an order.

[Bluesky]

I've never noticed a bias, I often see the WOM on the back side.

If you look at the WOM percentage figures that are calculated on just the first three money boxes then I agree with you. If you look at the other boxes in the ladders though, its more likely you will see more money on the lay side than on the back side. I have always thought the reason for this is the one Shaun gave in this thread.

[Derek27]

I've never noticed a bias, I often see the WOM on the back side.

If you look at the WOM percentage figures that are calculated on just the first three money boxes then I agree with you. If you look at the other boxes in the ladders though, its more likely you will see more money on the lay side than on the back side. I have always thought the reason for this is the one Shaun gave in this thread.

One possible reason could be that every back bet locks up part of your funds. But if you lay the entire field, only your largest liability is locking up your funds, so you're free to lay the rest of the field.

I remember when I used to lay the field or back the field, laying was always preferable because when you back the field, your exposure is not released until the last back bet is matched, whereas laying the field results in your exposure reducing with each matched bet.

[Bluesky]

One possible reason could be that every back bet locks up part of your funds. But if you lay the entire field, only your largest liability is locking up your funds, so you're free to lay the rest of the field.

I must admit I hadn't thought of that, seems like that could well be the reason or at least a big contributor to the difference that often occurs.