Wolverhampton favourites
For something to go out, something else has to come in. Perhaps AW races are more likely to feature big gambles by people in the know than many other types of races, as there are fewer unknowables when you're assessing whether a horse will run like the wind over 5 furlongs than if you're trying to work out how it will do over (say) 3 miles in wet conditions with fences to jump.
Jeff
Jeff
Kefboy wrote:Quite new to BF but what I have found is that most favourites are pounded by layers at Wolverhampton. Seems to happen more often than any other course. Is there a good reason?
The on course market is linked to the exchange markets.
If they go out of sync it opens up opportunities for the arbers.
The more bookmakers on course and more punters mean competition. The bookies want to lay horses. To stay in business they need to take bets, manage their liabilities and have a balanced book. Wolverhampton is one of the weakest on course markets. Sometimes on 3 bookies show up. Quite often in the winter there are only literally a couple of hundred people there, most of them are connections. The "live show" (last 10 mins) is controlled by on course. So bookies around the world take bets on prices that are decided by 3 bookies and a couple of hundred people.
So what sort of people go racing on a Saturday night at Wolverhampton? They have a nice restaurant there and a cheap hotel nearby. Go figure.
Thats why there are "big gambles". The people backing have no idea, they follow the money. The bookies know all the connections, so they cut any horse that looks like the connection fancy it. If you went along an wanted £200 on a 20/1 shot they wouldn't take your bet. (I know because I tried it). The market is so thin a very small amount changes the prices massively.
The same horses run against each other week in week out, they take it in turns to win. I NEVER trade at Wolves anymore.
Hope this helps you understand.
MG
If they go out of sync it opens up opportunities for the arbers.
The more bookmakers on course and more punters mean competition. The bookies want to lay horses. To stay in business they need to take bets, manage their liabilities and have a balanced book. Wolverhampton is one of the weakest on course markets. Sometimes on 3 bookies show up. Quite often in the winter there are only literally a couple of hundred people there, most of them are connections. The "live show" (last 10 mins) is controlled by on course. So bookies around the world take bets on prices that are decided by 3 bookies and a couple of hundred people.
So what sort of people go racing on a Saturday night at Wolverhampton? They have a nice restaurant there and a cheap hotel nearby. Go figure.
Thats why there are "big gambles". The people backing have no idea, they follow the money. The bookies know all the connections, so they cut any horse that looks like the connection fancy it. If you went along an wanted £200 on a 20/1 shot they wouldn't take your bet. (I know because I tried it). The market is so thin a very small amount changes the prices massively.
The same horses run against each other week in week out, they take it in turns to win. I NEVER trade at Wolves anymore.
Hope this helps you understand.
MG
mugsgame wrote: Quite often in the winter there are only literally a couple of hundred people there, most of them are connections.
I'm confused - are the people on course at Wolverhampton generally connections (who are presumably pretty knowledgeable about how their horse will run today) or mug punters enjoying a flutter on a night out?mugsgame wrote:So what sort of people go racing on a Saturday night at Wolverhampton? They have a nice restaurant there and a cheap hotel nearby. [...] The people backing have no idea, they follow the money.
And if you saw a favorite steam in heavily at Wolvs, would you regard it as a good lay?
Jeff
The 5.45 Wolverhampton last night had around 500k matched on the fav in Betfair. Within that sum there were quite a few 5k's, several 10k's and three 20k bets placed; it is extremely likely that the biggest bet taken on course would have been more than 1k, given the "crowd" (of 20 punters..lol) who were at the races.
The odds at Wolves are not influenced by the racegoers nor are they generally affected by connections betting on course. The biggest players in the market are (by far) the bookmakers simply playing the odds to profit from the money they have taken in the shops.
Competing Bookmakers back and lay the front runners like a game of chess where they all come out winners.
For the record; the odds opened at 2.14 (10 minutes out), went to a high of 2.2 and a low of evens and despite 500k being matched, the "net" balance left only around 10k layed on the fav just before the off.
The odds at Wolves are not influenced by the racegoers nor are they generally affected by connections betting on course. The biggest players in the market are (by far) the bookmakers simply playing the odds to profit from the money they have taken in the shops.
Competing Bookmakers back and lay the front runners like a game of chess where they all come out winners.
For the record; the odds opened at 2.14 (10 minutes out), went to a high of 2.2 and a low of evens and despite 500k being matched, the "net" balance left only around 10k layed on the fav just before the off.
Hi JamesJames1st wrote: The odds at Wolves are not influenced by the racegoers nor are they generally affected by connections betting on course. The biggest players in the market are (by far) the bookmakers simply playing the odds to profit from the money they have taken in the shops.
Are they basically smoothing their equity curve so that they make a nice profit regardless of who wins, rather than taking a big hit if the favourite wins?
Also, if the odds are affected by the bookies, does it not follow that they are affected indirectly by the 'normal punter' and the 'connected punter', given that the bookies presumably respond to their betting activities? For example, if connected punters are hammering a 15/1 horse with the on-course bookmakers, surely the bookmakers are likely to mitigate their liability by backing the horse on Betfair.
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
All I am pointing out is the fact that money taken on the course at Wolverhampton is peanuts compared to the SP and "take a price" bets executed in betting shops. Ergo the odds are not affected by what happens on the course. There is no chance of any real money changing hands at smaller courses; thats a thing of the past (even a £200 bet can halve a horses odds in a thin market as Mugsgame has pointed out). Generally speaking the connections also use Betfair to place their bets (better value) but they are a one off event in the trading mayhem.
In truth is that the only way that a big bookmaker can limit his liability is to lay off on Betfair and that can mean on any of the front runners. There are very few heavy "traders" operating at Wolverhampton on a Sat night, so all the action is created by the bigger bookies trading offices. Stationary odds don't allow the bookies to lay off their bets and so the artificial pendulum is set in motion to cause the necessary swing in odds to facilitate trading. But as in the example I quoted, the odds started and ended on pretty much the same figure.
All I am pointing out is the fact that money taken on the course at Wolverhampton is peanuts compared to the SP and "take a price" bets executed in betting shops. Ergo the odds are not affected by what happens on the course. There is no chance of any real money changing hands at smaller courses; thats a thing of the past (even a £200 bet can halve a horses odds in a thin market as Mugsgame has pointed out). Generally speaking the connections also use Betfair to place their bets (better value) but they are a one off event in the trading mayhem.
In truth is that the only way that a big bookmaker can limit his liability is to lay off on Betfair and that can mean on any of the front runners. There are very few heavy "traders" operating at Wolverhampton on a Sat night, so all the action is created by the bigger bookies trading offices. Stationary odds don't allow the bookies to lay off their bets and so the artificial pendulum is set in motion to cause the necessary swing in odds to facilitate trading. But as in the example I quoted, the odds started and ended on pretty much the same figure.
Thanks for your reply James.James1st wrote:Stationary odds don't allow the bookies to lay off their bets and so the artificial pendulum is set in motion to cause the necessary swing in odds to facilitate trading.
To clarify, is it your position that bookmakers manipulate the market to engineer trends whereby they can basically lay low in the shop and back high on Betfair?
If so, the problem I have with that theory is that someone has to be on the other side of the bookies' bets and lays, meaning that they require other market participants to take non-value bets and lays. And given how efficient the market is overall, that doesn't ring true.
Jeff
That explains why most of my big trades i achive go of my ladder going up, i threw in a bit and it started a stampede i got out what i wanted, as someone shot the cue jumpers down and that selection crashed right in so i dont blame you MG for not trading there it is a bit like a mine fieldmugsgame wrote:The on course market is linked to the exchange markets.
If they go out of sync it opens up opportunities for the arbers.
The more bookmakers on course and more punters mean competition. The bookies want to lay horses. To stay in business they need to take bets, manage their liabilities and have a balanced book. Wolverhampton is one of the weakest on course markets. Sometimes on 3 bookies show up. Quite often in the winter there are only literally a couple of hundred people there, most of them are connections. The "live show" (last 10 mins) is controlled by on course. So bookies around the world take bets on prices that are decided by 3 bookies and a couple of hundred people.
So what sort of people go racing on a Saturday night at Wolverhampton? They have a nice restaurant there and a cheap hotel nearby. Go figure.
Thats why there are "big gambles". The people backing have no idea, they follow the money. The bookies know all the connections, so they cut any horse that looks like the connection fancy it. If you went along an wanted £200 on a 20/1 shot they wouldn't take your bet. (I know because I tried it). The market is so thin a very small amount changes the prices massively.
The same horses run against each other week in week out, they take it in turns to win. I NEVER trade at Wolves anymore.
Hope this helps you understand.
MG
-
JollyGreen
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:06 am
My two pennies worth on this subject.
The main difference between Wolverhampton and other courses is the availability of live pictures. This does attract some big players one in particular is a friend of mine. This is not an attempt at name dropping because I am not going to mention his name. All I will say is he is a very wealthy person and bets in large sums. There are other track-side players at Wolverhampton, I believe it is the course that probably started the "beat the clock" traders.
Now obviously these players cannot get money matched up to infinity as there isn't always money available but, they play against each other. Some of them don't seem to understand that fact but it is true. It is usually the people chasing streets paved with gold that don't understand it but their P&L soon drives the message home. These players have a large impact on the market.
It is rare indeed for a market to move out of synch with the exchange but again you have to realise the course bookmakers have an advantage over exchange players. They can take money from the casual punter at Wolverhampton at a low price and if necessary they will hedge on the exchange BUT they often will not bother with the latter and that is where the difference lies. There are many good points in this thread that I am not going to disagree with, I am going to add one of my own.
As for the markets being out of synch to any great extent I can only remember once such occurrence of late which is shown here Wrong Betting Show There could be others but I cannot remember them.
If you have ever worked with, watched or pitted your wits against an on-course bookie you will know they work in a different way to exchange traders. A lot of stuff I read is based on thinking like a trader but not all bookies think or work that way, in fact very few of them do.
As traders we mainly rely on money as it flows in and out of the market. Very few of us bother with form, conditions, stable info etc. The bookies have an army of runners all with contacts who can supply sensible information. I am NOT talking about "inside info" I am taking about info like, "it will need this run" or "we're not happy with the surface" etc etc. They also connect with one another so if money comes for a horse they will check where it comes from and decide if the source is a dangerous one. The price then shortens if 50p each way is placed, sorry that is a bit facetious but I am sure you understand the point. Bookies can be called a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. I have asked for £50 e/w on a 14/1 shot and been told I can have £2.50 each way at 14/1 and the rest at SP
so these days I don't try too hard and prefer to use different methods.
Mugsgame mentioned the on-course bookies at Wolverhampton and trust me I have been there when the bookies outnumber the punters. If you ask Euler he will confirm a time when he laughed at me on ATR as I looked like a drowned rat at Wolverhampton one night. The other important point is that bookies will not necessarily balance their books. Sometimes there isn't enough money around for them to balance the book and other times they will simply stand a favourite. Also you have to decide on your interpretation of balancing the book. If you watch many bookies they will only balance their book across a few runners and then stand the rest. That is why I said it is important not to look at this "balance" through trader's eyes, the bookies use other factors as mentioned so it works completely different.
I became friendly with a clerk for a large rails bookmaker and he would often allow me to watch the book and see how it was forming. Admittedly this was a few years back but Betfair was in its pomp so nothing much has changed. I was shocked to see huge liabilities on three of the front five in the market so I asked what was happening. He simply said they wanted to take them on for various reasons so I watched as they manipulated their prices to suit their needs. Sure enough none of the liabilities even threatened to materialise and they cleaned up. This happened on quite a few of the markets. The old adage still rings true "the favourite wins the bookies lose, the favourite loses the bookies win!" Yes there are a few exceptions but that old adage holds true for a lot of races.
The comment
Both ways can work, you can choose to trade 100% and have a balanced book or you can use other methods as mentioned above and have an imbalanced book. If your methods are correct for either method then you can make a profit. I am an ex-gambler that has moved to trading but I still back and lay horses with a fixed liability and I still back and lay based on how I believe a race will work out. Yes, I get it wrong at times but I get it right often enough for it to work.
The main difference between Wolverhampton and other courses is the availability of live pictures. This does attract some big players one in particular is a friend of mine. This is not an attempt at name dropping because I am not going to mention his name. All I will say is he is a very wealthy person and bets in large sums. There are other track-side players at Wolverhampton, I believe it is the course that probably started the "beat the clock" traders.
Now obviously these players cannot get money matched up to infinity as there isn't always money available but, they play against each other. Some of them don't seem to understand that fact but it is true. It is usually the people chasing streets paved with gold that don't understand it but their P&L soon drives the message home. These players have a large impact on the market.
It is rare indeed for a market to move out of synch with the exchange but again you have to realise the course bookmakers have an advantage over exchange players. They can take money from the casual punter at Wolverhampton at a low price and if necessary they will hedge on the exchange BUT they often will not bother with the latter and that is where the difference lies. There are many good points in this thread that I am not going to disagree with, I am going to add one of my own.
As for the markets being out of synch to any great extent I can only remember once such occurrence of late which is shown here Wrong Betting Show There could be others but I cannot remember them.
If you have ever worked with, watched or pitted your wits against an on-course bookie you will know they work in a different way to exchange traders. A lot of stuff I read is based on thinking like a trader but not all bookies think or work that way, in fact very few of them do.
As traders we mainly rely on money as it flows in and out of the market. Very few of us bother with form, conditions, stable info etc. The bookies have an army of runners all with contacts who can supply sensible information. I am NOT talking about "inside info" I am taking about info like, "it will need this run" or "we're not happy with the surface" etc etc. They also connect with one another so if money comes for a horse they will check where it comes from and decide if the source is a dangerous one. The price then shortens if 50p each way is placed, sorry that is a bit facetious but I am sure you understand the point. Bookies can be called a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. I have asked for £50 e/w on a 14/1 shot and been told I can have £2.50 each way at 14/1 and the rest at SP
so these days I don't try too hard and prefer to use different methods.Mugsgame mentioned the on-course bookies at Wolverhampton and trust me I have been there when the bookies outnumber the punters. If you ask Euler he will confirm a time when he laughed at me on ATR as I looked like a drowned rat at Wolverhampton one night. The other important point is that bookies will not necessarily balance their books. Sometimes there isn't enough money around for them to balance the book and other times they will simply stand a favourite. Also you have to decide on your interpretation of balancing the book. If you watch many bookies they will only balance their book across a few runners and then stand the rest. That is why I said it is important not to look at this "balance" through trader's eyes, the bookies use other factors as mentioned so it works completely different.
I became friendly with a clerk for a large rails bookmaker and he would often allow me to watch the book and see how it was forming. Admittedly this was a few years back but Betfair was in its pomp so nothing much has changed. I was shocked to see huge liabilities on three of the front five in the market so I asked what was happening. He simply said they wanted to take them on for various reasons so I watched as they manipulated their prices to suit their needs. Sure enough none of the liabilities even threatened to materialise and they cleaned up. This happened on quite a few of the markets. The old adage still rings true "the favourite wins the bookies lose, the favourite loses the bookies win!" Yes there are a few exceptions but that old adage holds true for a lot of races.
The comment
is wrong because that is how the SP mechanism works. The SP is calculated based on an average price available from the on-course bookies. So if the off course boys want to alter this price to suit their needs they need to bet on course with the bookies who have braved it. Now sometimes they won't be there in person so they'll phone through an order to a "runner" who will agree a bet with the bookies. So you have to think about what SP is and what you are linking it to. How many times have you seen a price of 2.50 (6/4) with the bookmakers and apparently being held only to see it at 3.25 (9/4) on the exchange? That's simply created by liability and how you either perceive it or want to handle it. If an on-course bookie can knock out a horse at 2.50 to a line of mug punters (not our mugsgame before you suggest it) then she/he will do so until the cows come home. They may then choose to hedge on the exchange but if Betfair is correct as many will suggest then they will stand it because long term they're working way below the correct odds and long term they will profit.Ergo the odds are not affected by what happens on the course
Both ways can work, you can choose to trade 100% and have a balanced book or you can use other methods as mentioned above and have an imbalanced book. If your methods are correct for either method then you can make a profit. I am an ex-gambler that has moved to trading but I still back and lay horses with a fixed liability and I still back and lay based on how I believe a race will work out. Yes, I get it wrong at times but I get it right often enough for it to work.
No Jeff, the bookmakers, like the exchanges, really only attract big money in the last 7/8 minutes or so and then their trading desksFerru123 wrote:Thanks for your reply James.James1st wrote:Stationary odds don't allow the bookies to lay off their bets and so the artificial pendulum is set in motion to cause the necessary swing in odds to facilitate trading.
To clarify, is it your position that bookmakers manipulate the market to engineer trends whereby they can basically lay low in the shop and back high on Betfair?
If so, the problem I have with that theory is that someone has to be on the other side of the bookies' bets and lays, meaning that they require other market participants to take non-value bets and lays. And given how efficient the market is overall, that doesn't ring true.
Jeff
have the job of managing their individual risks by using Betfair where the liability exceeds their max figures. These are competing big bookies playing both sides of the book(s). Their job will be to either "hold up" the odds or to offload liability by taking the higher odds on offer on BF or from other sources.
Jollygreen, great post although you have taken my quote out of context (naughty
). I was referring specifically to Wolverhampton (and the other 7/8 courses where Betfair odds often operate independently from the on course bookmakers). It matters not what SP is returned from the course nor does it matter what odds are on offer by those bookies on the course, the Betfair odds are not directly affected. Indirectly both sets of players may happen to see the same event/news/horse sweating etc and that will affect the Betfair odds but however Stan Bissell marks up his board in the 6.30 race on the favourite, no-one trading/betting/laying on Betfair gives a toss. Equally no one (maybe there is one nerd?) gives a toss about what the Tote offices at Wolves are paying out on the fav.Of course industry SP is still stupidly calculated (and screws the punters since 2006) from 3 selected on course boards but this has nothing to do with my assertion that, on certain courses, those odds do not directly influence the odds on Betfair.