Lay the field - any stats available to assist?

[mickypaul72]

Thirsk, Yarmouth and Folkestone

[Crazyskier]

Its actually the opposite, the longer distance races have a far higher percentage of losing runners trading below 2.0, than the 5f, 6f & 7f sprints

Yes, the 2m+ jumps seem to get a lot of very short IP prices that don't win. I've experimented with this and a decent bank size and staking plan can have great results if patient enough.

CS

[jimonline]

Hi, I’ve been looking at it certainly looks like some courses are more geared to this approach over others, and them AW tracks really are a nightmare, looks like some people are seriously ahead of most at them places. Has Any1 else found this?!

[Atho55]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for

Less than 2 Odds and Lose.jpg

Less than 2 Odds and Lose 2.jpg

[Archery1969]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for


Less than 2 Odds and Lose.jpg




Less than 2 Odds and Lose 2.jpg

Nice one.

I guess the next stage would be to take each one above average and break it down further by race distance and finally by price. Figure out the average price by race and lay below it at those tracks outlined above.

[rik]

isnt the number of occurrences only relevant in context with amount of races? if you have more than 600 for Kempton for example there must have been a very high number of races as well, probably around 600?

Not sure if this is what you are looking for


Less than 2 Odds and Lose.jpg




Less than 2 Odds and Lose 2.jpg

[Andriy]

It's just very intensive data collection; as pointed out, the 1.01 data above means nothing with out sample size.
Some old stuff i've still got lying around, did a lot of work for about two thirds of tracks, not the AW though since too much of it.

eg For Nottingham (F), circa 2008-2013, data put into ROI vs Lay The Field price, you can do further breakdown by ground/ race type / distance etc using some filters

Nott LTF.png

So how do you rank courses? Just doing it by 1.01's a bit misleading, so i calculated ROI's by Lay The Field at each of 1.1, 1.25 and 1.5, and took the average. This is data 2008-2014.

LTF 2 Course Rankings 2.png

Looking at the data, you probably realise that any blanket strategy is futile, but maybe if i can lay at price X on course Y, there's a small profit, or maybe a bit of churning possible. The problem is that during that period from 2008 to 2014, the bottom fell out of the in running market, look at the results just for the above flat courses totalled up, by year:

LTF 1 Yearly 2.png

Apologies if graphics a bit manky, but you can see that it's not the money tree that a lot of people make it out to be. Need to be incredibly selective if setting up doing prerace... maybe experienced racereaders / in running betters can do it seeing how a race is developing.

[Atho55]

Yes I must agree that my earlier effort was a bit lacking in detail but offering up results based upon 2/3 of the tracks and a random pick of odds is better, but only just.

[ANGELS15]

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=18009&start=10

The above is a link to another thread on lay the field that may be of interest.

[Atho55]

Deleted

[zippus]

The sort of races best suited to this strategy arn't competitive races with close finishes, but races where the complexion of the race changes. I would imagine NH races would be better for obvious reasons.

I've traded on a lot of races where several horses traded under 1.5, but I've never counted the ones that didn't or paid much attention to it.

If you lay the field at 1.4, you need to get two bets matched 40% of the time just to break even, although this will be reduced if you can get 3 matched. I don't think realistically that you can achieve a substantially higher success rate than what you need to break even so I doubt there's much of a profit margin in the strategy.

Good luck anyway with the research.

I know this post is quite old but I've been experimenting with the lay the field strategy over the past few months. [Results have been pretty good using historical data and I have a 56% win rate with an average entry point at odds below 2]. I'm intrigued by the comment 'where the complexion of the race changes'. It strikes me that TPD could be a great alert to this and was wondering if anyone has trialled this and whether it's been worthwhile.

Thanks

[Derek27]

The sort of races best suited to this strategy arn't competitive races with close finishes, but races where the complexion of the race changes. I would imagine NH races would be better for obvious reasons.

I've traded on a lot of races where several horses traded under 1.5, but I've never counted the ones that didn't or paid much attention to it.

If you lay the field at 1.4, you need to get two bets matched 40% of the time just to break even, although this will be reduced if you can get 3 matched. I don't think realistically that you can achieve a substantially higher success rate than what you need to break even so I doubt there's much of a profit margin in the strategy.

Good luck anyway with the research.

I know this post is quite old but I've been experimenting with the lay the field strategy over the past few months. [Results have been pretty good using historical data and I have a 56% win rate with an average entry point at odds below 2]. I'm intrigued by the comment 'where the complexion of the race changes'. It strikes me that TPD could be a great alert to this and was wondering if anyone has trialled this and whether it's been worthwhile.

Thanks

Wow! I was six weeks old when I posted that.

[zippus]

Lol. You must have been a smart kid!

[PeteSw62]

Hi
Sorry I'm a newbee at betting and horse racing, just exploring different ideas.

So from reading previous posts, can I just clarify that this strategy is best for Thirsk, Yarmouth and Folkestone because they are the only short races under 7f with a short run in off the bend?

Then we need to look for no favourites around 2? If those conditions are met we then lay 50% of the favourites odds?
Thank you

[Dallas]

Hi
Sorry I'm a newbee at betting and horse racing, just exploring different ideas.

So from reading previous posts, can I just clarify that this strategy is best for Thirsk, Yarmouth and Folkestone because they are the only short races under 7f with a short run in off the bend?

Then we need to look for no favourites around 2? If those conditions are met we then lay 50% of the favourites odds?
Thank you

Some prefer to lay the field in longer NH races, other prefer to look at shorter Flat races.
Like any strategy some courses, distances, race types, number of runners (or any combinations of those) will suit laying the field better than others, even the odds you lay the field at are important and will tend to differ.

But when laying the field you are looking at getting 2+ runners matched below odds of 2.0, or 3+ more matched below odds of 3.0 and so on

As you can see from the images above its probably one of the easiest strategies to use data for

Your probably thinking of DOBing (double or bust) when you are looking to lay a runner at 50% its price you backed it at