Question about latest "back the fav" YT video by Peter.

[babear71]

Hi Everybody

I watched his latest video with great interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s98rrDwVz7s

He asks the question "what would happen if you blindly backed the fav in every single horse race for a whole year?" The answer is that you basically break even.

So the task for the trader is to adapt this strategy and turn it profitable. Now something really obvious which does immediately spring to mind (which makes me think that I must be wrong as it would be too good to be true).

Namely "back the fav for £1 and lay the rest of the field for £1". So with this approach now when the fav wins you also get paid out on all the lay bets as well. Would this not guarantee a huge profit over the long run?

As I say this seems too good to be true so I'd be grateful if someone could put me right.

tia

Bear

[jamesedwards]

Hi Everybody

I watched his latest video with great interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s98rrDwVz7s

He asks the question "what would happen if you blindly backed the fav in every single horse race for a whole year?" The answer is that you basically break even.

So the task for the trader is to adapt this strategy and turn it profitable. Now something really obvious which does immediately spring to mind (which makes me think that I must be wrong as it would be too good to be true).

Namely "back the fav for £1 and lay the rest of the field for £1". So with this approach now when the fav wins you also get paid out on all the lay bets as well. Would this not guarantee a huge profit over the long run?

As I say this seems too good to be true so I'd be grateful if someone could put me right.

tia

Bear

Peter's results in this video exclude commission. Assuming the collective 'hive' mind of the Exchange produces accurate odds in the very long run, which it will, then backing (or laying) every fav will make a loss equivalent to your commission, plus any relevant spread.

Peter explains in the second half of the video that to beat commission you have to beat the available prices, and that in this example if he was able to increase every achieved price by one tick then it would have turned net positive. Getting that extra tick is the difficult part.

[babear71]

Hi Everybody

I watched his latest video with great interest:
<snip>

Peter's results in this video exclude commission. Assuming the collective 'hive' mind of the Exchange produces accurate odds in the very long run, which it will, then backing (or laying) every fav will make a loss equivalent to your commission, plus any relevant spread.

Peter explains in the second half of the video that to beat commission you have to beat the available prices, and that in this example if he was able to increase every achieved price by one tick then it would have turned net positive. Getting that extra tick is the difficult part.

Thank you for the response but it doesn't seem to apply (talking about commission and extra ticks). Is what I'm talking about not a completely different "kettle of fish"?

Insofar as I'd be placing many more trades what with all the lay bets and this would produce radically different results from Peters.

Best Regards

Bear

[ruthlessimon]

Namely "back the fav for £1 and lay the rest of the field for £1". So with this approach now when the fav wins you also get paid out on all the lay bets as well. Would this not guarantee a huge profit over the long run?

As I say this seems too good to be true so I'd be grateful if someone could put me right.

tia

Bear

Isn't this just a leveraged bet on the favourite?

If the fav wins, brilliant
If the fav loses to a rag..... stained undies

[jamesedwards]

Hi Everybody

I watched his latest video with great interest:
<snip>

Peter's results in this video exclude commission. Assuming the collective 'hive' mind of the Exchange produces accurate odds in the very long run, which it will, then backing (or laying) every fav will make a loss equivalent to your commission, plus any relevant spread.

Peter explains in the second half of the video that to beat commission you have to beat the available prices, and that in this example if he was able to increase every achieved price by one tick then it would have turned net positive. Getting that extra tick is the difficult part.

Thank you for the response but it doesn't seem to apply (talking about commission and extra ticks). Is what I'm talking about not a completely different "kettle of fish"?

Insofar as I'd be placing many more trades what with all the lay bets and this would produce radically different results from Peters.

Best Regards

Bear

This is no different to upping the stake on the back bet. It will just multiply the expected loss.