I am currently using a horse racing betting strategy which involves backing horses to win.
I don't wish to discuss the strategy in itself but I have been thinking recently whether it would be in my interest to lay the backed horses in running.
I have always thought laying back is losing out on value. Is their an argument to lay at 1.01? or 2?
Any advice/opinions on this would be appreciated
Horse racing betting strategy - close bets or not?
It’s tempting but as you hinted at, this is the same as just blindly laying those runners at 1.01/2, is that going to be profitable long term? Probably not.
Advantages of doing so can remove a bit of variability to the pnl but you are likely to lose profit long term.
Advantages of doing so can remove a bit of variability to the pnl but you are likely to lose profit long term.
- northbound
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:22 pm
Only you can find the answer, here’s how:
- Create an Excel spreadsheet
- Log every single bet and for each one...
- Log the profit/loss
- Log the in-play minimum odds the horse reached
- Log the profit/loss you would have had by trading out at (example) 1.20, 1.50, 2.00
- After 200 bets, evaluate which strategy would have yelded the best return
You can find in-play minimum odds for every horse in a free CSV file published by Betfair the day after the race.
- Create an Excel spreadsheet
- Log every single bet and for each one...
- Log the profit/loss
- Log the in-play minimum odds the horse reached
- Log the profit/loss you would have had by trading out at (example) 1.20, 1.50, 2.00
- After 200 bets, evaluate which strategy would have yelded the best return
You can find in-play minimum odds for every horse in a free CSV file published by Betfair the day after the race.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:02 pm
That's something I'll look into. Although i have thousands of bets to get through it would be quite time consuming.northbound wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:28 pmOnly you can find the answer, here’s how:
- Create an Excel spreadsheet
- Log every single bet and for each one...
- Log the profit/loss
- Log the in-play minimum odds the horse reached
- Log the profit/loss you would have had by trading out at (example) 1.20, 1.50, 2.00
- After 200 bets, evaluate which strategy would have yelded the best return
You can find in-play minimum odds for every horse in a free CSV file published by Betfair the day after the race.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:02 pm
Would it be worth considering laying back when thinking re commission? I'm obviously paying more commission by not layingLinusP wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:25 pmIt’s tempting but as you hinted at, this is the same as just blindly laying those runners at 1.01/2, is that going to be profitable long term? Probably not.
Advantages of doing so can remove a bit of variability to the pnl but you are likely to lose profit long term.
- BetScalper
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm
It would make sense because a certain number of horses get turned over at 1.01, depending on the race course. But it depends at what price you initially backed them at. I think I read somewhere that it would work long term if you backed them at >= 3.00 decimal and layed them at <= 75% of the back price.
you THINK -lol. MDMA rulezBetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:13 pmIt would make sense because a certain number of horses get turned over at 1.01, depending on the race course. But it depends at what price you initially backed them at. I think I read somewhere that it would work long term if you backed them at >= 3.00 decimal and layed them at <= 75% of the back price.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:02 pm
I don't really understand. How would the initial back price determine this?BetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:13 pmIt would make sense because a certain number of horses get turned over at 1.01, depending on the race course. But it depends at what price you initially backed them at. I think I read somewhere that it would work long term if you backed them at >= 3.00 decimal and layed them at <= 75% of the back price.
- BetScalper
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm
What price will you be backing them at ?Slippery Richie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:36 pmI don't really understand. How would the initial back price determine this?BetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:13 pmIt would make sense because a certain number of horses get turned over at 1.01, depending on the race course. But it depends at what price you initially backed them at. I think I read somewhere that it would work long term if you backed them at >= 3.00 decimal and layed them at <= 75% of the back price.
- BetScalper
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm
Jim, I haven’t had any MDMA for years.jimibt wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:14 pmyou THINK -lol. MDMA rulezBetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:13 pmIt would make sense because a certain number of horses get turned over at 1.01, depending on the race course. But it depends at what price you initially backed them at. I think I read somewhere that it would work long term if you backed them at >= 3.00 decimal and layed them at <= 75% of the back price.
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
Value closing is as important as value opening. BSP is efficient so unless you can guarentee you'll beat that then you're best leaving things as they are. You probably won't beat it on pure stats (eg lay @ 1.xx or whatever, if you could then everyone here would simply be backing at bsp and laying at 1.xx ) so you'll need to be a good race reader with a fast finger.
ohhh. how many - lol.BetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:38 pmJim, I haven’t had any MDMA for years.jimibt wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:14 pmyou THINK -lol. MDMA rulezBetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:13 pmIt would make sense because a certain number of horses get turned over at 1.01, depending on the race course. But it depends at what price you initially backed them at. I think I read somewhere that it would work long term if you backed them at >= 3.00 decimal and layed them at <= 75% of the back price.
- BetScalper
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm
Around 1989 to 1992. The stuff is seriously lethal. Not a good idea.
Now I stick to my dark rum and occasional cigar.
i knew it!! the odd havana to poke a snook at trump - lolBetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:00 pmAround 1989 to 1992. The stuff is seriously lethal. Not a good idea.
Now I stick to my dark rum and occasional cigar.
- BetScalper
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm
You sussed me out.jimibt wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:05 pmi knew it!! the odd havana to poke a snook at trump - lolBetScalper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 22, 2018 10:00 pmAround 1989 to 1992. The stuff is seriously lethal. Not a good idea.
Now I stick to my dark rum and occasional cigar.