Horses that should drift, but refuse to...

[stueytrader]

Just wondering what my esteemed fellow traders think of this specific Question.

Why do some selections that should really be much bigger prices, fail completely to drift? Some even getting backed into shorter prices/steaming even.

It's been a problem for some of my trading recently, I must admit - I do better with backing selections not laying.

To clarify what I mean by 'should' be bigger prices, and therefore drift - objectively there are many reasons against a horse in fundamentals, e.g. it hates soft and the ground goes boggy, it has never stayed that far, it is heavily outclassed etc etc.

Those are fundamentals I know (anathema to the cold traders out there). Is that the issue here? Or am I missing something else?

Any views welcome...

[stueytrader]

Just to add, ironically, and what stimulated my question, in my straight betting (position taking) I do better as a layer rather than as backing overall.

[Derek27]

It's been a long time since I was a bettor but I've always put it down to people having a different opinion to me. It would be odd to see a known fast ground horse who cannot handle soft ground not drift in very wet conditions but most of the time there's always some angle or argument that would counter my own assessment.

[stueytrader]

It's been a long time since I was a bettor but I've always put it down to people having a different opinion to me. It would be odd to see a known fast ground horse who cannot handle soft ground not drift in very wet conditions but most of the time there's always some angle or argument that would counter my own assessment.

Yes, from a fundamentals point of view that can be possible - someone/many others think there is an alternative view of the selection.

What's interesting is that I know from my records that most of those I expected to drift do still go on to lose and/or run poorly. So my fundamentals were usually right in most cases (the exception may still manage to win despite an obvious negative against them).

I still lay outright where I feel these should lose, but not if I've already seen one of my trading lays shorten - because exposure can be too big in a trading stake.

[wearthefoxhat]

Pre- trading is more about adjusting and anticipating the market. When you've done the R&D on a selection and it all points to a Drift or Steam, it comes down to looking for confirmation and if others agree/disagree.

Straight Laying/Backing, IMHO, comes down to, do you feel the entry point is value?

Avoiding FOMO and letting it go, is the hard part, especilly if you've spent time on a race and want some reward for your efforts.

[alexmr2]

When a horse is playing up or the pundits are reading negative comments, why is the price still coming in?

Well I think the market has already factored all the variables into account. The comments the pundits say are just being read from somewhere that's already public I believe. If the behaviour is known behaviour for that runner, then the market won't be affected much for example.

In my experience it is no good to just lay something at any price because of a negative comment and then stare in disbelief as the money piles in.

Where it gets more interesting is when a horse has been trading around a certain range all day and then late money piles in and forms a new range, I believe that is algorithm traders/inside information and a combination of other people who appear to have identified where the value is.

We can never know for sure why something happens and as traders we have to adapt, trade what we see and stick to our strategy

[decomez6]

Just wondering what my esteemed fellow traders think of this specific Question.

Why do some selections that should really be much bigger prices, fail completely to drift? Some even getting backed into shorter prices/steaming even.

Any views welcome...

when two or more horses trade at identical price points , you expect to observe:
equal volume and volume% matched / horse
but this is rarely the case, # i think,
early opinion shapers might have outdated info. whereas ` cold-traders ` make decisions depending on the sentiments portrayed on the ladder.
this causes a tag of gear gear changes `war` between prices and their respective mismatched volume% s.
i think its all about the mechanics of the market and its attempt to take a logical path, which is interrupted by artificial external pressures .
this might come in form of dutching /bookmaking/arbitrage/ betfair crossmatching algos .

[stueytrader]

Thanks for the above replies, several points for thought I can see.

A common strand I can see is that market trading mechanisms may override the market betting behaviour (at least for some cases).

Funnily, I think my issue is that I often think partly against the 'trading mindset' when laying - possibly because I have a fair degree of edge in my lay betting.

I don't do that as much when trade backing, because I'm not as good at back betting conversely. So, I don't 'expect' the markets to agree with me as much when I'm trading a backed selection, so I'm thinking more closely to simple trading mechanisms more consistently instead.

I realise a simple question may be why am I trading my lays instead of simply laying them outright. That comes down to scale of staking and potential if I get my trading lays right - they theoretically can be much more profitable and less risky, but only if I get them right of course.

[napshnap]

Thanks for the above replies, several points for thought I can see.

A common strand I can see is that market trading mechanisms may override the market betting behaviour (at least for some cases).

Funnily, I think my issue is that I often think partly against the 'trading mindset' when laying - possibly because I have a fair degree of edge in my lay betting.

I don't do that as much when trade backing, because I'm not as good at back betting conversely. So, I don't 'expect' the markets to agree with me as much when I'm trading a backed selection, so I'm thinking more closely to simple trading mechanisms more consistently instead.

I realise a simple question may be why am I trading my lays instead of simply laying them outright. That comes down to scale of staking and potential if I get my trading lays right - they theoretically can be much more profitable and less risky, but only if I get them right of course.

Why guessing, if you can download your pnl data from your bf account, load this data into excel and then filter out "back" part of your lay-to-back bets to find it out?

[stueytrader]

Good question napshnap

Simple answer is that in fact I have already got that data and analysis, and I do actually know I'd do better without having traded back my trading lays. My bad, my wording should have been clearer on that.

The point is more why those selections didn't drift as I predicted (more often at least).

Second point is I feel I could enhance my laying ability with adding trading to those lays - but there's something I need to change and improve about my trading approach for these selections.

[stueytrader]

I'd like to add, I've just actually lost on one of these types (though it was a shortie).

I trade layed Healing Power in the 1.30 Leicester (after it had already shortened considerably). I wanted to lay the selection, but also felt it would bounce at least a bit before the off.

Negatives - not best form recently (last place in previous race), not done it on turf as an AW specialist. Trading very short (as low as 1.49).

It didn't bounce from where I entered, so I ended up with a losing lay on the trade - the lay bet of course would have been perfect (it finished out the front 2 in a small field).

[decomez6]

Good question napshnap

better without having traded back my trading lays.

Second point is I feel I could enhance my laying ability with adding trading to those lays - but there's something I need to change and improve about my trading approach for these selections.

‘Deep sea fishing ‘ requires a well rehearsed emergency plan .
I would only add onto positions that are doing well and running out of steam or even better reverse reverse them to get a small ride on the opposing wave/ bounce back . Reason being , you have had a good run and you can almost smell the fear and pressure from the loosing side.

A check list on the conditions needed to meet criteria must be in your muscle memory.
If you decide to trade pre -off , you will have little time to follow up a race to its conclusion , because you are bussy trading the next race.
If you choose to give it a try ( you probably have),
Take a keen look at the inplay trader tool.
You have a full market view on price ranges and their consequent interactions . You do it a couple of times then you get a gut feeling on how race might end up .
Combine it with good pictures from the live stream , you almost got yourself an edge.
Lay trade with greening at low prices with a reasonable offset should give you a feel on what’s going on with your other targets.
May be combine with the fundamentals, like .. form line, dobbs history, pace maps etc ..
then you can map out the glitches wherever they are occuring.
Just a thought, I am not doing it myself. I prefer to learn one thing at a go and then diversify later .

[stueytrader]

Seriously considering whether my trading should be avoided altogether when I want to lay.

The number of my selections that get backed by the market but still run poorly is very frustrating.

Good example yesterday look at Curragh 5.55 - Peregrine Run my lay selection.

Horse is trading around 17.0-19.0 range, where I've laid intending to trade, it does briefly enter the 20's ranges, but then most oddly is crashed back into as low as 9.6!

Of course that ruins my lay trade. However, as I predicted, in terms of the race it finishes unplaced 8th position.

Do backers want to give their money away or something in these cases??

[stueytrader]

Just to answer an obvious question - yes I could have greened when it briefly went into the 20s prices. However I had predicted a bigger drift, so didn't activate it at that time.

[wearthefoxhat]

Seriously considering whether my trading should be avoided altogether when I want to lay.

The number of my selections that get backed by the market but still run poorly is very frustrating.

Good example yesterday look at Curragh 5.55 - Peregrine Run my lay selection.

Horse is trading around 17.0-19.0 range, where I've laid intending to trade, it does briefly enter the 20's ranges, but then most oddly is crashed back into as low as 9.6!

Of course that ruins my lay trade. However, as I predicted, in terms of the race it finishes unplaced 8th position.

Do backers want to give their money away or something in these cases??

Sounds like you're able to identify a poor/losing runner.

Maybe, wait for confirmation of the price, when it starts to steam, then you can lay it at shorter odds. Better than Laying it at bigger odds.

Cos it steams, it doesn't mean it's smart money...probably the dumb money.