smarter profit hedging
Because the initial hedge is the whole point of using the odds of the horse to your advantage.
If you can explain how exactly you would implement your suggestion, using the mathematics applicable, then you may be able to prove your point better.
As for now, this is as simple as I can make it.
You trade make 100 dollars free bet on a 2.00 pop. This horse, theoretically has a 50% chance of winning.
If you don't hedge, you should win 100 dollars, 50% of the time. If you do hedge, you should win 50 dollars, 100% of the time.
Either way, you are looking at 50 bucks on average per race.
One way, you didn't hedge at all, the other way, you hedged completely. Yet the same monetary figure prevails. This is no miracle.
All you would achieve by hedging different amounts across all the runners depending on their odds, is laying alot of runners at the current available odds. Or laying, to the wrong side of the market.
I think you will find, that by doing it your way, you would give up alot of your profits by laying at bad odds.
I can't see any benefit, but I can see a negative.
Unless you can prove that it is actually a mathematicly viable scenario, I would suggest that you are simply giving up some of your profits.
To be honest, I can't even get my head around what you are suggesting.
You are trying to compare a relative chance of a horse, against others chances.
Without putting too much thought into it, already have put too much in, here are the complications.
If, now that is a term used pretty loosely here, IF, you can manouvre your money around as you suggest, are you claiming that you will have more money if the 2.00 favourite wins than the 50% of the market suggests?
IF, you can get that market, so these figures are represented, you can't have more than 50% profit on the favourite. .
You know what, I am going to stop right there. I am getting sucked into trying to come up with numbers that you are requesting, when I don't think you have put enough thought in.
Mathematically, you shouldn't have any more money going than its odds suggest. This being the case, if 50 dollars is the max you should have on such a horse, then by having less on the longer priced runners, you are worse off than the 50 bucks you would already have with a simple hedge.
Get that profit up to 80? with less numbers across the other runners, and 50% of the time, you won't win that 80, and you will win less.
Got my head going around in circles. And without claiming anything above my mathematical ability, if I can't see it being possible, then until proven otherwise, I will assume I am correct.
jk
Unless you can show the numbers you are talking about implementing, I think your mind is working too hard on something that just won't happen.
If you can explain how exactly you would implement your suggestion, using the mathematics applicable, then you may be able to prove your point better.
As for now, this is as simple as I can make it.
You trade make 100 dollars free bet on a 2.00 pop. This horse, theoretically has a 50% chance of winning.
If you don't hedge, you should win 100 dollars, 50% of the time. If you do hedge, you should win 50 dollars, 100% of the time.
Either way, you are looking at 50 bucks on average per race.
One way, you didn't hedge at all, the other way, you hedged completely. Yet the same monetary figure prevails. This is no miracle.
All you would achieve by hedging different amounts across all the runners depending on their odds, is laying alot of runners at the current available odds. Or laying, to the wrong side of the market.
I think you will find, that by doing it your way, you would give up alot of your profits by laying at bad odds.
I can't see any benefit, but I can see a negative.
Unless you can prove that it is actually a mathematicly viable scenario, I would suggest that you are simply giving up some of your profits.
To be honest, I can't even get my head around what you are suggesting.
You are trying to compare a relative chance of a horse, against others chances.
Without putting too much thought into it, already have put too much in, here are the complications.
If, now that is a term used pretty loosely here, IF, you can manouvre your money around as you suggest, are you claiming that you will have more money if the 2.00 favourite wins than the 50% of the market suggests?
IF, you can get that market, so these figures are represented, you can't have more than 50% profit on the favourite. .
You know what, I am going to stop right there. I am getting sucked into trying to come up with numbers that you are requesting, when I don't think you have put enough thought in.
This horse at 2.00, will win 50% of the time, and lose 50% of the time.let’s have an algorithm that hedges the traded profit accordingly to the odds the horses have to win. In that manner a favorite horse with SP of 2.00 should have larger proportion of the traded profit than a horse with SP of 10.00 since the horse is 5 times more likely to win than the other one.
Mathematically, you shouldn't have any more money going than its odds suggest. This being the case, if 50 dollars is the max you should have on such a horse, then by having less on the longer priced runners, you are worse off than the 50 bucks you would already have with a simple hedge.
Get that profit up to 80? with less numbers across the other runners, and 50% of the time, you won't win that 80, and you will win less.
Got my head going around in circles. And without claiming anything above my mathematical ability, if I can't see it being possible, then until proven otherwise, I will assume I am correct.
Actually, I think "pure mathematics" will prove you wrong.This may sound like a gambling but it is not! It is pure mathematics!
You cannot possibly make more money through hedging techniques than what you have already made trading. The 50 hedged on 2.00 fav example I have used, makes you 50 every time you do it. You cannot increase that. If every horse runs to its odds, it is mathematically impossible to increase that profit through hedging techniques.If we hedge less of the possible profit to horse that is the least likely to win in favor of horse that is more likely to win we should make more money!
I think you already know. You started your sentence with it.I am not very strong on mathematical issues in betting but what do you think?
jkUnless you can show the numbers you are talking about implementing, I think your mind is working too hard on something that just won't happen.