The market becomes less efficient? Or something psychological relating to 2.0 and 3.0Archery1969 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 6:21 pmYou should only ever be offering prices to be laying below 2.0 and offering prices to be backing above 3.0.firech8787 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 7:32 amHi all I'm a newbie so this may have come up before.
Just looking at a strategy of laying a horse at 10 for £10 with £90 liability
Then if it comes steaming in backing it at 1.5 for £180 therefore making sure I don't lose money.
Any opinions on this? Has anyone tried it. Shouldn't be hard getting matched at 1.5 for £180.
Obviously worse case scenario if it reaches 1.5 or lower then loses...
Think about it!!!!
Lay high back low
Please tell us moreArchery1969 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 6:21 pmYou should only ever be offering prices to be laying below 2.0 and offering prices to be backing above 3.0.firech8787 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 7:32 amHi all I'm a newbie so this may have come up before.
Just looking at a strategy of laying a horse at 10 for £10 with £90 liability
Then if it comes steaming in backing it at 1.5 for £180 therefore making sure I don't lose money.
Any opinions on this? Has anyone tried it. Shouldn't be hard getting matched at 1.5 for £180.
Obviously worse case scenario if it reaches 1.5 or lower then loses...
Think about it!!!!
-
- Posts: 3319
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
- Location: Newport
LinusP - No need too, your far more intelligent then myself.LinusP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 8:18 pmPlease tell us moreArchery1969 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 6:21 pmYou should only ever be offering prices to be laying below 2.0 and offering prices to be backing above 3.0.firech8787 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2024 7:32 amHi all I'm a newbie so this may have come up before.
Just looking at a strategy of laying a horse at 10 for £10 with £90 liability
Then if it comes steaming in backing it at 1.5 for £180 therefore making sure I don't lose money.
Any opinions on this? Has anyone tried it. Shouldn't be hard getting matched at 1.5 for £180.
Obviously worse case scenario if it reaches 1.5 or lower then loses...
Think about it!!!!
But didn’t someone once post on BA explaining the ideal price points when offering prices into a market as opposed to taking said prices available?
Apart from that then doesn’t it make sense to be offering below 2.0 and always offering above 3.0 in decimal odds ?
- The Silk Run
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:53 am
- Location: United Kingdom
That's an interesting discussing thread and Semantic from Archie & LinusP. Who I too hold in high regard. We are always learning, even me ...
Personally, I have avoided the crowd, and these two pressure points [crossovers] of 2.0 & 3.0 respectively having observed the high level of activity and footfall on point, and offset in these two areas !!!
Hey LinusP. Whatever happened to UN: JollyGreen. Similar to yourself, truly inspiring .
Keep up the GOOD work. And keep Archie & I, and others ON POINT, and in Check.
Happy Easter
I feel like it only matters if youre trading close to the boundaries? I dont see how backing at 1.6 would be a problem if its value for example.
For odds of 2.00, each upward step increases by 2% while each downward step decreases by 1%, offering a 2:1 advantage. With 3.00 odds, the increase is 5% and the decrease is 2%, a 2.5:1 advantage. At 4.00 odds, the increase is 10% and the decrease is 5%. For odds of 6.00, both increase and decrease are 20%, eliminating any advantage.
For odds of 2.00, each upward step increases by 2% while each downward step decreases by 1%, offering a 2:1 advantage. With 3.00 odds, the increase is 5% and the decrease is 2%, a 2.5:1 advantage. At 4.00 odds, the increase is 10% and the decrease is 5%. For odds of 6.00, both increase and decrease are 20%, eliminating any advantage.
-
- Posts: 3319
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
- Location: Newport
Didn't mean to suggest I was backing at 3.0, often I will lay below 2.0 and back above 3, 4, 6 or 10.Fugazi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:42 amI feel like it only matters if youre trading close to the boundaries? I dont see how backing at 1.6 would be a problem if its value for example.
For odds of 2.00, each upward step increases by 2% while each downward step decreases by 1%, offering a 2:1 advantage. With 3.00 odds, the increase is 5% and the decrease is 2%, a 2.5:1 advantage. At 4.00 odds, the increase is 10% and the decrease is 5%. For odds of 6.00, both increase and decrease are 20%, eliminating any advantage.