Is a Losing backing system a winning lay system?

[Probounce]

Hello, I know this is a traders forum but around 10 years ago I worked in Australia selling some very expensive betting software that basically backed / dutched multiple runners in certain races when the criteria was met.

The software was called profit performer. It was a total scam, although I only found this out once working for the company and training clients how to use it. The results were absolutely shocking…. But it got me thinking surely this is the ultimate lay system if it was reverse engineered.

What are peoples thoughts on this ? Is a crap betting system a great lay system ?

[jimibt]

unfortunately, no. the reason being that you take on the role of the bookie when laying, so assume the liability for that runner, should it win. therefore, you may end up laying a 15/1 outsider only to find that it actually goes on to win. this means that you don't lose a flat stake as you would when backing, but rather, would lose £15 for every £1 you won (if the horse lost).

others will explain it far better, but in summary - this idea is not new (reversing the back to a lay), but the sheer efficiency of the markets does mean that those big outsiders are going to romp home to win more often than you'd think. However, not often enough to make it a winning back strategy, but often enough to prevent it being a profitable lay strategy... weird but true!

[PeterLe]

The short answer is no due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection
ie your more likely to get matched on a losing bet than a winning bet

[Derek27]

Hello, I know this is a traders forum but around 10 years ago I worked in Australia selling some very expensive betting software that basically backed / dutched multiple runners in certain races when the criteria was met.

The software was called profit performer. It was a total scam, although I only found this out once working for the company and training clients how to use it. The results were absolutely shocking…. But it got me thinking surely this is the ultimate lay system if it was reverse engineered.

What are peoples thoughts on this ? Is a crap betting system a great lay system ?

If a backing system makes a loss, laying all those bets at the same price would make a profit. But in practice, you won't get matched at the same price. For example, you might back a horse at 6 that immediately drifts.

[gstar1975]

Hello, I know this is a traders forum but around 10 years ago I worked in Australia selling some very expensive betting software that basically backed / dutched multiple runners in certain races when the criteria was met.

The software was called profit performer. It was a total scam, although I only found this out once working for the company and training clients how to use it. The results were absolutely shocking…. But it got me thinking surely this is the ultimate lay system if it was reverse engineered.

What are peoples thoughts on this ? Is a crap betting system a great lay system ?

In my experience I have found that 1 will lose less than the other. What you can do is find which one is losing less (in your system, Backing or Laying, because then you are closer to Break Even and profitability) and then tweak it to push towards profitability.

[jimibt]

Hello, I know this is a traders forum but around 10 years ago I worked in Australia selling some very expensive betting software that basically backed / dutched multiple runners in certain races when the criteria was met.

The software was called profit performer. It was a total scam, although I only found this out once working for the company and training clients how to use it. The results were absolutely shocking…. But it got me thinking surely this is the ultimate lay system if it was reverse engineered.

What are peoples thoughts on this ? Is a crap betting system a great lay system ?

If a backing system makes a loss, laying all those bets at the same price would make a profit. But in practice, you won't get matched at the same price. For example, you might back a horse at 6 that immediately drifts.

also remember that you back with a stake but lay with a liability! makes a big difference if the bet goes off tilt, even if matched at the target price.

[Derek27]

Hello, I know this is a traders forum but around 10 years ago I worked in Australia selling some very expensive betting software that basically backed / dutched multiple runners in certain races when the criteria was met.

The software was called profit performer. It was a total scam, although I only found this out once working for the company and training clients how to use it. The results were absolutely shocking…. But it got me thinking surely this is the ultimate lay system if it was reverse engineered.

What are peoples thoughts on this ? Is a crap betting system a great lay system ?

If a backing system makes a loss, laying all those bets at the same price would make a profit. But in practice, you won't get matched at the same price. For example, you might back a horse at 6 that immediately drifts.

also remember that you back with a stake but lay with a liability! makes a big difference if the bet goes off tilt, even if matched at the target price.

That shouldn't make any difference. Back six horses at 5.5 to £10 stakes, one winner results in a £5 loss.

Lay them all for £10 stakes at the same price, one winner results in a £5 profit. The key question is, can you lay them at the price you would have backed them at?

[ANGELS15]

Don't forget that more often than not and particularly in the case of bigger price horses you will be laying them over the odds. For instance an 8/1 shot may be 14s on the exchange.

[jimibt]

If a backing system makes a loss, laying all those bets at the same price would make a profit. But in practice, you won't get matched at the same price. For example, you might back a horse at 6 that immediately drifts.

also remember that you back with a stake but lay with a liability! makes a big difference if the bet goes off tilt, even if matched at the target price.

That shouldn't make any difference. Back six horses at 5.5 to £10 stakes, one winner results in a £5 loss.

Lay them all for £10 stakes at the same price, one winner results in a £5 profit. The key question is, can you lay them at the price you would have backed them at?

i may be wrong, but i think this is a different proposition to what the OP was saying. the gist was that the system had selections in each race that were tipped as winners (i.e. a few dutched, high odds runners per race). therefore, the stake vs liability concern is more apparent as you stand a chance of getting hit with a high odds runner which effectively takes out a large chunk of your bank. but as you say, it also depends on getting very tightly matched on your odds selections.

if you step back and recalibrate, if you are laying the higher odds runners, why not just dutch the 2 top faves

[Crazyskier]

If only this were true, I'd likely no longer be posting and reading this forum, but on to the next stage of my life in the sun

As others have said, getting matched at the SAME price is the issue. It's almost impossible to get consistent results, despite many years of trying across many different market types.

...But hey, we live in hope!

CS

[ShaunWhite]

getting matched at the SAME price is the issue...

....unless its at BSP.

[ShaunWhite]

therefore, the stake vs liability concern is more apparent as you stand a chance of getting hit with a high odds runner which effectively takes out a large chunk of your bank.

Liability staking? Ie lay for an equal loss.

And as you've brought up the word, what's a "bank"? Is it a random amount that's in your account which you topup whenever, a monthly allowance that means you stop till next month when it's gone, or the total you ever plan to invest in your venture, some of which happens to be your account or in other accounts at a given time?

[jamesedwards]

getting matched at the SAME price is the issue...

....unless its at BSP.

This is an interesting concept.

I spent years trying to automate Greyhounds using BSP and switching sides always just ended up with similar losses for me in the long term. Obviously I was constantly battling the 2% commission, but I came to the conclusion that even my relatively limited BSP positions must have been influencing the BSP enough to swing value against me. You never know what the BSP would have been without your stake.

[Laytraders]

Thanks for the replies guys, but I would like to add a few more points. The software basically followed money so you were usually backing 1st, 2nd and 3rd fav when the criteria was met. So I’m essence I would not be laying 8/1s at say 14s exchange price.

Looking back to the results of their software it didn’t even nearly break even it lost 1000s per week.

It would bet for £100 dollar stakes to get a minimum ROI of 30% ( late changes in price is usually this would drop slightly maybe 27/28% ROI )

So as mentioned further up the thread it would be laying to fixed liability, so when I lose It would be around £30 for the £100 lay. If successful I would win £100 less commission. It always felt like you were chasing your tail. A loss for the client would be £100 and when they won it would only be around £30. So a typical day would be 2 wins in a row then a loss then 3 wins then 2 losses etc resulting in big losses over a month.

The manual traders could do ok at it but when clients bought it to auto trade. Once left to trade whilst they went to the beach etc, the software would literally burn their wallets

[ShaunWhite]

. If successful I would win £100 less commission. It always felt like you were chasing your tail. A loss for the client would be £100 and when they won it would only be around £30. So a typical day would be 2 wins in a row then a loss then 3 wins then 2 losses etc resulting in big losses over a month.

It doesn't really matter even if it paid $1 and lost $100 if the strike rate was high enough.

The problem Imo is the lack of value, and that's the issue with dutching full stop. Why would all the top 3 favs all be value or even be value taken as a set. Dutching just seems to be a way of smoothing returns rather than having any logical purpose. If you know what value is available you should be using different staking (eg Kelly) and if you don't, then how do you know that any value there is on two of them isn't being lost on the 3rd

You can't cheat the maths, if you're not picking value runners then no amount of combinations or staking will magic up a profit.