Does anyone make a profit doing this?
Just curious.
Mark
Horse racing Laying the first to hit 2.0
I would presume from the lack of responses to your question that not many people do. I think it's unlikely that someone, somewhere, is making good money from this very simple strategy but doesn't want to share it in case everybody lays the first 2.0 IR and he can't get his bet on.
Mark, give up trying to find an easy way to make a few quid and do a bit of research. There probably are some simple strategies that you can automate, that will work, but you won't dream them up!
Mark, give up trying to find an easy way to make a few quid and do a bit of research. There probably are some simple strategies that you can automate, that will work, but you won't dream them up!
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
The answer to your question can be found here viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16034
The fact you're asking basically the same question shows you didn't understand the answers you were already given. If there's something you didn't understand about what was explained, then just ask.
...just curious why 2.0 ?
The fact you're asking basically the same question shows you didn't understand the answers you were already given. If there's something you didn't understand about what was explained, then just ask.
...just curious why 2.0 ?
- wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
Just seen your post.
I go along with what was said about automation assisting in this approach. Stakes would have be level staking and then there's the commission at 2%-5%.
Dallas posted up a .baf file somewhere, that's a starting point to see if that can help.
A lay2back approach could work on favourites that are less than 2.0, are running poorly IP, hit 2.0 and as the momentum continues, you then green up with automation.
1. The trade is greened as per the ticks or profit target.
2. The trade is greened at a bigger profit because the market moves fast and better odds can be available.
3. The trade doesn't match, the favourite comes back to win.
4. The trade does match, the favourite comes back to win.
In all scenarios (bar 3.), automation would help complete the trade. I would also track the race and manually intervene with the one click trade option (red trade).
Is 2.0 the magic number? No-one will say or knows, but it might be worth a try in simulation mode.
Many thanks for everyone replying.
I know these are simple strategies but I am curious if we take away the simple strategies for in-play horse racing then you have to
either,
1). Look at the stats for patterns.
2). Or informed views on horse racing markets.
I will shut up now, I have too much time on my hands nowadays ( driving my wife mad ! ).
Thanks,
Mark.
I know these are simple strategies but I am curious if we take away the simple strategies for in-play horse racing then you have to
either,
1). Look at the stats for patterns.
2). Or informed views on horse racing markets.
I will shut up now, I have too much time on my hands nowadays ( driving my wife mad ! ).
Thanks,
Mark.
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
There's a bunch of other ways too Mark, big changes in LTP, gap filling, trading volatility etc etc. People have studied this for almost 2 decades so as you can imagine there's wide variety of ways to approach it.
There are threads all about strategy development somewhere in here which should make interesting reading for you.
Absolutely nothing wrong with trying something simple but don't expect a profit immediately. Try and find the postings by Euler where he talks about 'trading at random' and what you can learn from it.
Good luck.
There are threads all about strategy development somewhere in here which should make interesting reading for you.
Absolutely nothing wrong with trying something simple but don't expect a profit immediately. Try and find the postings by Euler where he talks about 'trading at random' and what you can learn from it.
Good luck.
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:06 pm
As has already been mentioned, either you're not going to get matched on the winner, or you definitely will be matched on the horse that hit 2.0 and then goes on to lose. Putting a 1.01 bet in will see you get matched at much shorter odds, that with commission will make you a loser over the long-run.
I have backtested these types of strategies over historical data that make a small profit, but unfortunately it is not possible to replicate in a live setting. I have also run experiments on this, with software running on AWS in Ireland (very low latency to BF exchange) with little success.
Relying on price alone in-play means you are likely to be behind other participants and will be following events, rather than anticipating them.
I have backtested these types of strategies over historical data that make a small profit, but unfortunately it is not possible to replicate in a live setting. I have also run experiments on this, with software running on AWS in Ireland (very low latency to BF exchange) with little success.
Relying on price alone in-play means you are likely to be behind other participants and will be following events, rather than anticipating them.
The reason it works long term is that overall two out of every three favourites lose over time proven from the results over the last twenty years
Of course there will be losing runs and winning runs but as long as you have enough money to cover them it will even out over time
Simple really
- Crazyskier
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:36 pm
Except that your ''two out of every three favourites that lose over time'' do NOT always hit 2 in-running. Many of the losing favourites start above 2 and never trade at or below 2. Therefore your logic is flawed.threedogs wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 5:53 pmThe reason it works long term is that overall two out of every three favourites lose over time proven from the results over the last twenty years
Of course there will be losing runs and winning runs but as long as you have enough money to cover them it will even out over time
Simple really
Simple, really.
CS
- Crazyskier
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:36 pm
Someone once said, ''don't argue with an idiot''. So I won't.
Now that may be a little harsh threedogs as you only post rarely and I don't know you at all; however, please re-read your own posts and try to see if you can make sense of the replies and why your '2/3 favourites lose' logic is flawed when applied to a lay at 2s scenario.
Good luck.
CS