Understanding of apparently odd laying on ladder

[bastuncriochnatha]

Hi,
Today, 1st Mar:1720 Doncaster, there is a very unusual race. Two horses, Poppy Kay @ 1.08 and Sussex Road @13.5 (time of posting).

Looking at the ladder, there is a massive amount of money waiting to be taken on the Lay side of Poppy Kay from 1.08 down to 1.01 and virtually nothing on the Bet side. There has been money matched mainly @ 1.08 with lesser amounts at 1.09, 1.07, 1.06.
Based on the win truism of Bet high and lay low, I assume that all of this money is on the Lay side in the hope of Bets taking their money all the way into 1.01 and that money laid at 1.08 is hoping for a drift out???

Is it the case that most of these layers will bet higher closer to the off?

Is there any danger in what has gone on here or is it an entirely Win situation?

Confused.

b'cioch

[Euler]

There are a lot of automated traders that automatically place large volumes near the bottom of the ladder with the intention of pinching some value when a red hot favourite fails to win the race from an unbeatable position. There is long term value there, but only if the SP is correct.

[PDC]

There are a lot of automated traders that automatically place large volumes near the bottom of the ladder with the intention of pinching some value when a red hot favourite fails to win the race from an unbeatable position. There is long term value there, but only if the SP is correct.

I don't think that is what is happening here. Most of that money will vanish at the off, if it were doing what Peter suggests it would remain inrunning to get matched.

Look at the rest of the days racing to get an idea of the amounts people put into the market for what Peter says.

The money is placed there imo for one of two reason, the first is looking for a fat finger and the second is to get queue position for pre-race trading. The price can only go so low so the potential risk of putting those amounts up now are very limited with a good upside of having queue position. I would think it is mostly from one person.

They won't put it on the back side as the risk is much higher.

This is just about always the scenario that happens when you have such a short priced horse. If you turn to the market 10 minutes before the off to start putting in your amounts you are going to be behind a wall of money while the big player with queue position has a huge advantage and can to an extent control the price movement.

Another good example is the 0440 tomorrow at Randwick in Australia, in about 15 hours time. The favourite is trading at 1.09/1.10 at the moment and there are 6 figure amounts on the lay side at all prices down to 1.01

This money will all be cancelled at the off bar a very small amount of it as it has no interest in the inplay side of things that Peter talked about in his reply. Again it is there for either queue position or hoping for a fat finger imo.

I will try to remember to get a screen shot when the market is inplay so that we can see how much remains in the market to do what Peter is saying.

Here is a screen grab at 1400:

Doncaster.png

[PDC]

This is an example from the 1535 at Lingfield. The first image shows the amounts on the ladder at the off when Betfair freeze the market and the second is an image as soon as the market goes inplay. You can' see how much of that money remains in the markets to try and achieve what Peter said. The stuff that was removed was clearly looking for a fat finger down to 1.01.

At the off amounts.png

As soon as it goes inplay.png

[PDC]

Here are the screen shots for you, at the off and then just as the market goes inplay.

As you can see most of the lay money vanishes:

At the off amounts.png

As soon as it goes inplay.png

[PDC]

There are a lot of automated traders that automatically place large volumes near the bottom of the ladder with the intention of pinching some value when a red hot favourite fails to win the race from an unbeatable position. There is long term value there, but only if the SP is correct.

Also with your comment Peter I don't see the relevance of the SP. The people laying near the bottom of the ladder imo have no relevance to the SP. For example they are looking for a horse to be caught on the run in when having looked like winning or falling at the last fence, that applies regardless of what the SP was.

What link do these lays have to do with the SP as I must be missing something for you to think that?

[bastuncriochnatha]

Thanks for the replies guys and forgive my tardiness in responding. However, I am left with a few questions that I might ask?

Euler responds:
"There are a lot of automated traders that automatically place large volumes near the bottom of the ladder with the intention of pinching some value when a red hot favourite fails to win the race from an unbeatable position. There is long term value there, but only if the SP is correct".

Regarding the "long term value". This kind of farce where there are 2 runners at 1.08 and 13.5 has got to be something that happens once in a 1000 races if not much much more and the fav failing to win will be even be more improbable.

My understanding here is that advantage can only arise from the fav losing if the lay money is left in-play (ie. the lay money is in effect bet on the fav losing). I have a doubt about the long term profibility of that strategy. Please correct me if I am wrong there.

Regarding the use of the lay money hoping to be matched pre-Off. Surely, only a small portion of that queued at 1.08 will be matched and a profit ensured if the fav drifts out? That, also, must be an unlikely prospect. Would not the liklihood be that the price comes in leaving 1.08 and immediatly below lay queued money in a losing position if taken? Again, I am open to correction.

PDC's view that most of the money , especially getting down towards 1.01, is there in the hope of a Fat Finger (presumeably backer error)!! How would that occur?

There was an enormous amount of money on the lay side all the way from 1.08 to 1.01.

I am at a loss, in my ignorance, to understand Euler's, reasoning, with respect, and also how PDC's Fat Finger hypothesis could occur frequently enough to be worth the bother, albeit that the money is placed and removed by Bots before the off and is possibly all laid by one person!

Any help on this would be highly appreciated in my quest for "enlightenment" in the only thing that offers a method of beating the zero-sum game-minus ( with loss accruing though Bookie's overround and exchanges commission), namely Scalping.

I am just reading Buchdahl's Square & Sharps, Suckers & Sharks
and I have to say that this statistical tour-de-force of betting pessimistic reality would incline one to grab the rope and head for the woods. However, so far, he has nothing to say about scalping! But then scalping is not betting, is it

Now, to find some way of mastering the black art of reading the wisdom of the crowds on the fly, where favourites and ratings and tipsters etc are of no consequence, and come to know what goes UP and what comes DOWN and WHEN.

Thanks for troubling to reply to my original query and anything in addition would be a boon.

Cheers,

bastun