Horses : Laying The field At 1.34

[SeaHorseRacing]

A lot of sharp tracks as you would expect to see there trading low.

I never really looked into this but as a thought from the top of my head, I would recommend.

Stay away from races where there are very short priced favs. likely to be strong travellers and thus unlikely to drift out and only when they're beaten.

Different types of races... Novice or handicap?

Pace in the race... really strong paces will allow bigger prices from the back to get up late. Far more likely to get more to travel low if you can spot a fast pace. (Especially if well fancied runners are front runners) And the reverse. Well fancied horse that is held up running in slow paces.

[wearthefoxhat]

Also consider laying the first qualifier only. (1.34 may not be the magic figure)

In many instances, laying more than one is just giving away any profit.

[mhorro]

Just missed Kempton 18.45 21/03/2018

4 horses traded at 1.34

[SeaHorseRacing]

Just missed Kempton 18.45 21/03/2018

4 horses traded at 1.34

The question is. Did you see the type of race there that caused that... inexperienced horse more likely to cause trouble in running.

[spreadbetting]

There were 4 losing under 1.34 bets yesterday too, you'd be raking it in.

[Derek27]

Just missed Kempton 18.45 21/03/2018

4 horses traded at 1.34

You'd have made a good profit but it only takes 11 non-eventful markets to get back to where you started!

[ocze0107]

Here's some stats to help you from the stats Betfair make available. Out of 123,217 races there were a total of 1,194,965 runners, 157,525 of those hit 1.34 or under.

That would suggest at £2 stakes the 123,217 winners would lose £83,787.56.

The 34,308 matched that didn't win would have won back £68,616, netting a loss of £15,171.56.

That may not be accurate because is assumes all bets were matched but it doesn't look promising.

Interesting statistic, i play since few week this. I lay inplay the first Horse if it hit 1.6 I don't have stats like you guys but i see it makes profit. After 18 Days i played 320 Races, 108 Wins, 159 Loss, and 52 Horses not matched. Currently my profit is about 13%. Lets see what happen in few months, if anyone have statistics let me know. Thank you.

[Derek27]

Here's some stats to help you from the stats Betfair make available. Out of 123,217 races there were a total of 1,194,965 runners, 157,525 of those hit 1.34 or under.

That would suggest at £2 stakes the 123,217 winners would lose £83,787.56.

The 34,308 matched that didn't win would have won back £68,616, netting a loss of £15,171.56.

That may not be accurate because is assumes all bets were matched but it doesn't look promising.

Interesting statistic, i play since few week this. I lay inplay the first Horse if it hit 1.6 I don't have stats like you guys but i see it makes profit. After 18 Days i played 320 Races, 108 Wins, 159 Loss, and 52 Horses not matched. Currently my profit is about 13%. Lets see what happen in few months, if anyone have statistics let me know. Thank you.

Hi ocze0107, welcome to the forum.

The calculation I made above was for laying the entire market pre-race rather than laying the first horse to trade at a certain price, but it is interesting to hear, using your strategy, that you're in profit after 320 markets, which is a good sample.

I'm asking this question for the OP's benefit rather than mine. Are you selective or have any criteria for selecting which races you apply this strategy to?

[ShaunWhite]

Interesting statistic, i play since few week this. I lay inplay the first Horse if it hit 1.6 I don't have stats like you guys but i see it makes profit. After 18 Days i played 320 Races, 108 Wins, 159 Loss, and 52 Horses not matched. Currently my profit is about 13%. Lets see what happen in few months, if anyone have statistics let me know. Thank you.

Don't be surprised if things change when we go from NH to Flat racing.

[ocze0107]

@Derek27

Hi and thank you,

currently i have no criteria about my bets and played all markets in the last 18 Days. I played all bets flat, so there was no compounded staking or any other stakin plan. If this strategy works long term good i think about other staking methods. I compared last night a lot of system but for my reason first its important to have a good bank management. I study math long time so i know enough about calculation. Do betting since about 15 Years and make good profits, never trade. I make updates from time to time. Currently i must loss 22 Races to be break even.

@ShaunWhite

lets see what happen, if flat is a disaster i know what to change then.

[spreadbetting]

................................, if anyone have statistics let me know. Thank you.

123,479 races , 1197189 runners ,186,191 hit 1.6 or under inplay, 122,663 won. I'd have to check why there's a big discrepancy between races and winners, alot of the time a winner may get it on the line and not hit the low odds but 816 races does seem alot.

You also need to remember a lot of runners in play odds will be under 1.6 because their starting price is 1.3 etc so you wouldn't neccessarily be laying those in the field at 1.6. Did a quick query and there were 6,056 runners whose BSP was 1.6 or under for a combined BSP of 8532.47, 4,340 of those went on to win with a combined BSP of 6053.60

[foxwood]

I lay inplay the first Horse if it hit 1.6

As I read it, he's laying just the one horse - the first one whose odds drop to 1.6. Some of those will zip right out again and that explains why some of his bets are unmatched.

He's not laying the field so the stats quoted for that don't apply to his strategy.

Don't think there are any stats on "first lowest at 1.6" winning or not unless you have the detailed Timeform data at maximum depth ?

[wearthefoxhat]

@Derek27

Hi and thank you,

currently i have no criteria about my bets and played all markets in the last 18 Days. I played all bets flat, so there was no compounded staking or any other stakin plan. If this strategy works long term good i think about other staking methods. I compared last night a lot of system but for my reason first its important to have a good bank management. I study math long time so i know enough about calculation. Do betting since about 15 Years and make good profits, never trade. I make updates from time to time. Currently i must loss 22 Races to be break even.

@ShaunWhite

lets see what happen, if flat is a disaster i know what to change then.

Good post and well done on your results.

I believe you're on the right track as the lay price will sometimes be less than 1.60 as the market zips through and the selection still gets gubbed. The liability isn't high and a sequence of results similar to Sunday just gone, will put you well ahead. The first favourite only @ x.xx BSP may work well too.

There was a popular Lay system, pre-race, called "Little Acorns" (pdf freely available by googling), that looked between the favourite price range of 1.50 to 2.00 (average lay price of 1.76). The 2f trading below 6.0, 3f trading below 10.0. It relied upon recovery staking plans, including fibonacci, and that was where their large profit claim was made. There's no reason why flat staking, although more of a grind, can't work in the long run.

There's no reason mathematically it can't work IP. It could even be automated...(Dallas may have some ideas on that one )

[spreadbetting]

I lay inplay the first Horse if it hit 1.6

As I read it, he's laying just the one horse - the first one whose odds drop to 1.6. Some of those will zip right out again and that explains why some of his bets are unmatched.

He's not laying the field so the stats quoted for that don't apply to his strategy.

Don't think there are any stats on "first lowest at 1.6" winning or not unless you have the detailed Timeform data at maximum depth ?

No problem , I thought I'd post up the stats as it'd give him an idea of the numbers and I'm not sure why being the first would mean it'd have more chance of losing than say the last. The bare stats simply show that laying at 1.6 would be around a 3.6% loss even before comms and the occurences are very much in line with the odds so the fact is unless you're able to pin point races it's likely the only runner to hit 1.6 in a race will be the winner not a loser.

People seem to assume these simple strategies are winning ones because people highlight the fact when a few horses hit sub 2 odds in a tight race but conveniently forget the everyday races where you'd be continually losing. From a selfish point of view I'm more than happy for people to be chucking ill informed liguidity into the markets especially chasing odds to get them.

[spreadbetting]

There was a popular Lay system, pre-race, called "Little Acorns" (pdf freely available by googling), that looked between the favourite price range of 1.50 to 2.00 (average lay price of 1.76). The 2f trading below 6.0, 3f trading below 10.0. It relied upon recovery staking plans, including fibonacci, and that was where their large profit claim was made. There's no reason why flat staking, although more of a grind, can't work in the long run.

There's no reason mathematically it can't work IP. It could even be automated...(Dallas may have some ideas on that one )

People have been looking thru historic results for as long as I can remember to proof winning systems