Anyone use a similar strategy?

[thepressure]

Hi

This is something Im thinking of and having mixed results with.

We all know at some point, all bar one horse will trade at 1000 and one at 1.01.

Ive always been a person who would rather take lots of tiny wins at minimal risk, than big wins/losses and hope they profit. My current problem is working a strategy that wins enough to cover the largish occasional loss.

Ive recently been trying with the use of the Servant to pick horses in play who are running at the back/not looking good and put a Servant rule on to place a lay at 50 once the last traded price is 48, and then cash out at about 100. My theory being if the price is moving up the horse must be doing worse than others etc...

Problems:

Ive run this rule on several horses in the race, and generally it does ok, when it doesnt is when a horse has a spurt just after my lay gets placed and matched, I dont want to run a SL, but often this happens the last few furlongs on a race where then suddenly instead of moving down slowly the horse is 1.5 or something suddenly, so even if i cash out the loss is large, (£25 on 50p).

Questions:

Is this strategy fundamentally flawed or are there a few tweaks I could do / that others run similar that could really make these losses less common, ive had 2 losses in the last couple of days, so overall im down even though ive had lots of wins.

Thanks

[ShaunWhite]

Whether there's value to be had depends on a horse being the wrong price rather than just being a certain price, eg a big price or a drifting price. And the fact you appear to be taking other people's offers suggests you're happy to take prices other people consider to be poor value. You're playing in an area where speed and race reading, visually or otherwise, wins the day on a small number of races a day, or deep data analysis wins the day at large scale. Pick your arena.

Generally though in-running prices are on average correct, those at 2.0 come back half the time and those at 50 come back 2% of the time. You a need some way to identify those outside of that average.

[thepressure]

I guess im not trying to outthink or deep dive the market because no matter how hard you are doing that there will always be someone more intelligent, clued up.

I guess (naively maybe), if the horse looks in a bad position has moved from 10-50 odds, its more likley to move from 50-100, than 50-1.01. Although I see your point that im taking someones offer, so they're happy to back it at 50...but, and I dont know this, do horses who move from say 10-50 3/4 around the track, really win 2% of the time, gut feel says no. Odds have to add up to 100, so is that horse perfectly represented, probably not.

I dont know, im a losing trader so not knocking anything anyones said.

[ShaunWhite]

do horses who move from say 10-50 3/4 around the track, really win 2% of the time, gut feel says no.

This is the sort of question that can lead to an edge. But you need to step away from gut feeling and either collect some data or invest some cash in a min stakes bot to gather some information. You might find this is true at certain courses but I very much doubt its across the board.

[Derek27]

Hi

This is something Im thinking of and having mixed results with.

We all know at some point, all bar one horse will trade at 1000 and one at 1.01.

Ive always been a person who would rather take lots of tiny wins at minimal risk, than big wins/losses and hope they profit. My current problem is working a strategy that wins enough to cover the largish occasional loss.

Ive recently been trying with the use of the Servant to pick horses in play who are running at the back/not looking good and put a Servant rule on to place a lay at 50 once the last traded price is 48, and then cash out at about 100. My theory being if the price is moving up the horse must be doing worse than others etc...

Problems:

Ive run this rule on several horses in the race, and generally it does ok, when it doesnt is when a horse has a spurt just after my lay gets placed and matched, I dont want to run a SL, but often this happens the last few furlongs on a race where then suddenly instead of moving down slowly the horse is 1.5 or something suddenly, so even if i cash out the loss is large, (£25 on 50p).

Questions:

Is this strategy fundamentally flawed or are there a few tweaks I could do / that others run similar that could really make these losses less common, ive had 2 losses in the last couple of days, so overall im down even though ive had lots of wins.

Thanks

It's fundamentally flawed, as you alluded to your minute profits will be wiped out by losses. Strategies with a good risk to reward ratio are generally a better starting point.

[MobiusGrey]

By no means an expert at all but the phrase 'pennies in front of a steamroller' spring to mind here. Unless you're taking value somewhere along the way you will end up b/e or at a loss and I can't see where the value is by just laying a hold up horse. If the horse is a known hold up horse and is running to form there's people with faster pictures than you/trackside/drones who will eat your stake for breakfast every time.

[jamesedwards]

Hi

This is something Im thinking of and having mixed results with.

We all know at some point, all bar one horse will trade at 1000 and one at 1.01.

Ive always been a person who would rather take lots of tiny wins at minimal risk, than big wins/losses and hope they profit. My current problem is working a strategy that wins enough to cover the largish occasional loss.

Ive recently been trying with the use of the Servant to pick horses in play who are running at the back/not looking good and put a Servant rule on to place a lay at 50 once the last traded price is 48, and then cash out at about 100. My theory being if the price is moving up the horse must be doing worse than others etc...

Problems:

Ive run this rule on several horses in the race, and generally it does ok, when it doesnt is when a horse has a spurt just after my lay gets placed and matched, I dont want to run a SL, but often this happens the last few furlongs on a race where then suddenly instead of moving down slowly the horse is 1.5 or something suddenly, so even if i cash out the loss is large, (£25 on 50p).

Questions:

Is this strategy fundamentally flawed or are there a few tweaks I could do / that others run similar that could really make these losses less common, ive had 2 losses in the last couple of days, so overall im down even though ive had lots of wins.

Thanks

Unless you have an edge it is fundamentally flawed as your 50 offer risks becoming value for people who have an edge. Example of an edge could be someone better at race reading than you, someone who knows more about how that horse runs, someone with faster pics, or someone using in-running speed data through TPD.

You need an edge or you will lose long term.

[thepressure]

do horses who move from say 10-50 3/4 around the track, really win 2% of the time, gut feel says no.

This is the sort of question that can lead to an edge. But you need to step away from gut feeling and either collect some data or invest some cash in a min stakes bot to gather some information. You might find this is true at certain courses but I very much doubt its across the board.

Really? Im surprised by that,not everything in the race is going to be priced perfectly, and when in the back end of the race arent 1-3 horses going to be the key focus, and then the rest of the odds just fill in the void, especially at the sharp end of the race?

[thepressure]

Hi

This is something Im thinking of and having mixed results with.

We all know at some point, all bar one horse will trade at 1000 and one at 1.01.

Ive always been a person who would rather take lots of tiny wins at minimal risk, than big wins/losses and hope they profit. My current problem is working a strategy that wins enough to cover the largish occasional loss.

Ive recently been trying with the use of the Servant to pick horses in play who are running at the back/not looking good and put a Servant rule on to place a lay at 50 once the last traded price is 48, and then cash out at about 100. My theory being if the price is moving up the horse must be doing worse than others etc...

Problems:

Ive run this rule on several horses in the race, and generally it does ok, when it doesnt is when a horse has a spurt just after my lay gets placed and matched, I dont want to run a SL, but often this happens the last few furlongs on a race where then suddenly instead of moving down slowly the horse is 1.5 or something suddenly, so even if i cash out the loss is large, (£25 on 50p).

Questions:

Is this strategy fundamentally flawed or are there a few tweaks I could do / that others run similar that could really make these losses less common, ive had 2 losses in the last couple of days, so overall im down even though ive had lots of wins.

Thanks

It's fundamentally flawed, as you alluded to your minute profits will be wiped out by losses. Strategies with a good risk to reward ratio are generally a better starting point.

Any particualr ones to look into?

[Derek27]

Hi

This is something Im thinking of and having mixed results with.

We all know at some point, all bar one horse will trade at 1000 and one at 1.01.

Ive always been a person who would rather take lots of tiny wins at minimal risk, than big wins/losses and hope they profit. My current problem is working a strategy that wins enough to cover the largish occasional loss.

Ive recently been trying with the use of the Servant to pick horses in play who are running at the back/not looking good and put a Servant rule on to place a lay at 50 once the last traded price is 48, and then cash out at about 100. My theory being if the price is moving up the horse must be doing worse than others etc...

Problems:

Ive run this rule on several horses in the race, and generally it does ok, when it doesnt is when a horse has a spurt just after my lay gets placed and matched, I dont want to run a SL, but often this happens the last few furlongs on a race where then suddenly instead of moving down slowly the horse is 1.5 or something suddenly, so even if i cash out the loss is large, (£25 on 50p).

Questions:

Is this strategy fundamentally flawed or are there a few tweaks I could do / that others run similar that could really make these losses less common, ive had 2 losses in the last couple of days, so overall im down even though ive had lots of wins.

Thanks

It's fundamentally flawed, as you alluded to your minute profits will be wiped out by losses. Strategies with a good risk to reward ratio are generally a better starting point.

Any particualr ones to look into?

There is an infinite number of potential strategies but you need to pick one that appeals to you or your style of trading. Have you done any manual trading that produced any ideas?

If I was thinking of trading horses at big prices I'd be looking to back horses that have the potential to drop down in price. Conversely, if I was considering trading horses at very short prices I'd be looking to lay them. The 'snipers' that back horses that look like they're seconds away from winning and the guys that lay 'certain' losers at big prices are amongst the biggest losers, picking up pennies in front of the steam roller, so to speak.

[Tetras]

do horses who move from say 10-50 3/4 around the track, really win 2% of the time, gut feel says no.

This is the sort of question that can lead to an edge. But you need to step away from gut feeling and either collect some data or invest some cash in a min stakes bot to gather some information. You might find this is true at certain courses but I very much doubt its across the board.

Really? Im surprised by that,not everything in the race is going to be priced perfectly, and when in the back end of the race arent 1-3 horses going to be the key focus, and then the rest of the odds just fill in the void, especially at the sharp end of the race?

To a certain extent that might be true, but it's also a problem, because it's harder to get matched at decent amounts at high prices and when you do get matched, you can guarantee it'll be every freaking time it is unfavourable to you.

[thepressure]

Im taking on all your points, but it all seems to be, higher prices are unfavourable, but that argument can work for low prices too, everyone has different opinions and thats why prices move right.

Equally there must be people making big wins / losses on short prices, so why cant there be people making money picking up pennies in front of a steam roller? There has to be an equilibrium?

[Tetras]

Im taking on all your points, but it all seems to be, higher prices are unfavourable, but that argument can work for low prices too, everyone has different opinions and thats why prices move right.

Equally there must be people making big wins / losses on short prices, so why cant there be people making money picking up pennies in front of a steam roller? There has to be an equilibrium?

The whole point of trading is that you take on a favourable risk/reward and higher prices are usually worse in multiple ways. For example: at short prices you can get out easier and get more matched without giving away your edge, so while some traders will be making huge wins / losses, the relative risk they're taking on is probably way lower than you'd imagine from their stakes (e.g. you can use hundreds, or even thousands and yet only be risking a pound or two). At high prices you can struggle to get £20 matched and it moves in a more unpredictable way, so it's very easy to lose large amounts and a big stake (from yourself, or a third party) can completely jam the market, which makes consistency in your trading more difficult to achieve. If you focus on backing like Derek suggested, then these problems are less of an issue.

[thepressure]

Thanks - I guess the problem is finding horses mid race you think are going to drop in price, and then again if you accept an offered price you could be taking bad valur as people have explained in here before.

It's a minefield I guess

I did actually start looking into laying the early leader, but what I found was often the lower the odds a horse starts a race the more often it wins (shock) so then started laying high price horses that took early leads cos they often for caught very quick.

[jamesedwards]

Thanks - I guess the problem is finding horses mid race you think are going to drop in price, and then again if you accept an offered price you could be taking bad valur as people have explained in here before.

It's a minefield I guess

I did actually start looking into laying the early leader, but what I found was often the lower the odds a horse starts a race the more often it wins (shock) so then started laying high price horses that took early leads cos they often for caught very quick.

You're missing the point. You should be looking for an edge, not a sub-set of price-points in vain hope of stumbling onto long term profit.

eg Try focusing on a couple of horses per race, learn more about how they run and trade them with greater knowledge than the average in-running punter. Or have a look at Dobbing early pace runners https://patternform.co.uk/. Or try TPD if you are ok with simple programming.