Australian racing

[rik]

[quote=rik post_id=225639 time=1593157522 user_This is the in in play min matched price for UK losers going back to 2015 - some notable features in the distribution...

That should be about 50k runners?
Interesting that the round prices like 1,1, 1,2 1,5 are a lot more common, probably more to do with the layers than inplay backers, a minimum of £100 has to be matched at the price?
Clearly 1.01 much better value than 1.02, 1,03 going by this
I guess you could take more from a graphic that shows matched at < price, so if there were 50k runners and 25k times <1,5 got beat that would be correct, if there was a significant difference that would be interesting
Simply some prices are a bit more common than others not the most useful information, other than 600something 1.01 got beat for 50k or so runners makes it slight value

[sionascaig]

[quote=rik post_id=225639 time=1593157522 user_This is the in in play min matched price for UK losers going back to 2015 - some notable features in the distribution...

That should be about 50k runners?
Interesting that the round prices like 1,1, 1,2 1,5 are a lot more common, probably more to do with the layers than inplay backers, a minimum of £100 has to be matched at the price?
Clearly 1.01 much better value than 1.02, 1,03 going by this
I guess you could take more from a graphic that shows matched at < price, so if there were 50k runners and 25k times <1,5 got beat that would be correct, if there was a significant difference that would be interesting
Simply some prices are a bit more common than others not the most useful information, other than 600something 1.01 got beat for 50k or so runners makes it slight value

470k runners, 420k losers, 37k losers traded <2

[Anbell]

think with backing 1000 most of the time you get matched on all of them but 1 so for 11 runners its basically the same odds as laying 1.01.
Not made statistical analysis but going by amounts queued at 1.01 compared to usually nothing at 1000 youd think generally laying 1.01 is better value if you could get first in queue.
if its a competitive finish with multiple runners i think putting back bets at much higher odds than currently traded can work as a strategy as cross matching can get you matched easily if there is betting on at least 2 others.

I’ve done the experiment. Went for a reasonable period - maybe four months or so - layed every runner in every Australian race at 1.01. It didn’t turn out positive - maybe I didn’t go for long enough, sometimes I was first in the queue, sometimes I wasn’t, some days I got three 1.01 turnovers (maybe I should have martingaled it ) many days I didn’t get any.

I did find other numbers below 2 that work, but since I’ve paid my learning fee to the market I’ll keep that for me.

This is the in in play min matched price for UK losers going back to 2015 - some notable features in the distribution...

interesting. Why are some of those bars fatter than others?

[rik]

my previous post a bit wrong, guess i meant about 50k races and math wrong as well
Anyway the more relevant is traded at <price relative to races isnt it.
so your saying out of 50k races only 37k traded below 2, thats quite a difference, must be caused by odds on favourites?
For races without odds on favourite the amount of runners trading <2 is still significantly lower than races?

[sionascaig]

my previous post a bit wrong, guess i meant about 50k races and math wrong as well
Anyway the more relevant is traded at <price relative to races isnt it.
so your saying out of 50k races only 37k traded below 2, thats quite a difference, must be caused by odds on favourites?
For races without odds on favourite the amount of runners trading <2 is still significantly lower than races?

Excluding races with an odds on fav there were c34k losers that traded < 2 and lost out of c49k races (c53k races in total population so 4k races had odds on favs) - the graph looks pretty much the same..

I was thinking there must be some value at spikes for inplay backers if there are relatively large amounts of money sitting at particular price points - presumably the layers had decided strategy in advance.

The data doesn't have amount matched at particular price points...

Anbel - I think its just an excel display issue causing thicker bars..

[Emmson]

On all Aus nags markets (as far as I can see)
No such declaration on any UK nags markets (as far as I can see)

Maybe Aus regulators stipulate this has to be declared while no such stipulation exists on UK markets so they don't bother.

[Derek27]

It appears cross-matching has been switched off for UK racing.

[Emmson]

It appears cross-matching has been switched off for UK racing.

I have been noticing the book percentage, underround anyway has been hitting 100% a lot lately in my playing back of some of my recordings. I've never strayed into this murky world before.

[rik]

only tome cross matching is turned off is if there is a non runner in the market that hasnt been removed by the off, otherwise its generally activated both uk and aus markets

[Derek27]

only tome cross matching is turned off is if there is a non runner in the market that hasnt been removed by the off, otherwise its generally activated both uk and aus markets

If it doesn't say "this is a cross-matching market" in the rules then surely it's permanently switched off for that market?

It's not possible to switch it on or off for a non-runner because non-runners are removed when the market's suspended and bets can't be placed.

[Emmson]

only tome cross matching is turned off is if there is a non runner in the market that hasnt been removed by the off, otherwise its generally activated both uk and aus markets

If it doesn't say "this is a cross-matching market" in the rules then surely it's permanently switched off for that market?

It's not possible to switch it on or off for a non-runner because non-runners are removed when the market's suspended and bets can't be placed.

Every Aus market I can find inc for Aus Rules & Aus Rugby League has the declaration in the rules "This is a cross matching market" can't find any declaration for any non Aus market.

[rik]

Derek I meant if the race is started but the non runner hasnt been removed yet but still listed as a runner, betfair must have some security spotting this so they dont lose money on voided cross matched bets involving the non runner.
Maybe there are different regulations for Australian markets having to declare „this is a cross matching market“ in the information, but there is definitely the same cross matching algorithm running on all uk, french, south african races as well
if there is a back bet placed at 1.05 that doesnt get fully matched, lay bets of 21 on all other runners are placed, if there additional back bets still on other runners they get combined with the 1.05 back for higher lays on all other runners etc, lay overround will never go under 100% or back overround over 100% unless there is a non runner not removed on time, then often back overround can get >100% as there is more backing than laying especially towards the end of the races, even accounting for the non runner market share

[Emmson]

I just tested on an empty tie cricket market and the cross matching was working there despite no declaration in the rules so yes it seems its something Aus regulators stipulate must be in public domain.

[eightbo]

dont think i'll trade full session tonight, might prioritise sleep for afternoon uk cards

[eightbo]

noticed prize money available today is mostly $100k and under, iirc there was a guaranteed $250k every sat for 2019-2020, has that ended and does anyone know if we've seen a drop in liquidity at affected tracks eg rosehill/randwick?