Staking by Liability in Lay Strategy

[robsmith]

I have a laying strategy where the selections are below a set price.

Is there any benefit in staking to a fixed liability (instead of a fixed back stake giving variable liability ) other than knowing the maximum loss?

Given that the price of the selections are capped, I I kind of think there aren’t, but I can’t quite get my head around it.

Any help would be appreciated.

[Derek27]

I have a laying strategy where the selections are below a set price.

Is there any benefit in staking to a fixed liability (instead of a fixed back stake giving variable liability ) other than knowing the maximum loss?

Given that the price of the selections are capped, I I kind of think there aren’t, but I can’t quite get my head around it.

Any help would be appreciated.

Staking is part of any strategy so changing your staking method is changing your strategy, slightly. Laying at 2.0 and 4.0 for the same stake gives you three times the liability for the latter, whereas laying by liability results in the same liability. Nothing wrong with either but I generally lean towards the former and balancing my liabilities.

Laying by book percentage is similar to dutching, you'll have the same P/L across all the selections you've laid.