Losing strategies wanted

[freddy]

Im pretty sure the lay the draw and back after a goal strategy is a good loser,
(AKA the football cash generator )

People may tell you if they are selective they can make it pay,
but when i researched it, admittedly around 4-5 years ago now, i found you would be worst off doing it than if you had just layed the 0-0,

so if we assume laying 0-0 would lose you at the very least commision long term, this should lose you much more .

[LeTiss]

I messed around with that strategy 3 years ago, and you're dead right freddy, just laying the 0-0 draw proved far more profitable long-term.

[Iron]

If you're trading to design a trading system that will reduce your betting bank to near as nil or dammit, then overstaking is the way to go. However, unless you trade differently with bigger stakes, it won't affect your long-term percentage return on investment. I'd say that the only way to do that is to delay in cutting when the market moves against you, but to close ASAP when you're in profit. That way, you capture the big moves that happen more often than randomness predicts. Otherwise, you're doing the equivalent of betting at evens on the toss of a coin, and long term you'd break even, were it not for commission.

Jeff

[Zenyatta]

So the moral of the story is that all generic stategies are useless in themselves, and all profit over and above break-even actually comes from knowing which specific events or selections to apply a strategy to, which requires...er....intelligent thought of some kind... not exactly surprising ya know.

[Iron]

Zenyatta -

I disagree. Trading isn't a deep intellectual endeavour. It's like ping pong - you see an opportunity, and you react; there's no time to think. Only with this form of ping pong, if someone serves a 100 mph shot with loads of spin at you, you can ignore it without losing a point...

As for needing to know anything about the race in terms of class, form, etc (if I'm right in thinking that's what you're getting at), I disagree. I bet there are loads of guys who can profitably trade horses all day long, despite knowing nothing about the horse or the race, but just responding to what they see in the ladder.

Jeff

[steven1976]

Back my team bolton every week and double up if they get a win (wins are rare). Theres a certain strategy for losing money quick!

[psycho040253]

Here's a few losing strategies that I can vouch for:

Back all horses when they reach odds of 1.01 on BF on the basis that if their odds fall to 1.01, they can't possibly lose.

Back all favourites on the basis that, if they are favourites, they have the best chance of winning.

Back all steamers on the basis that all those punters who backed it and caused it to steam can't be wrong.

Lay all drifters on the basis that all those punters who layed it and caused it to drift can't be wrong.

Lay all horses that go into a big lead at the start of a race on the basis that they will run out of energy before the end and will get caught and passed.

Following a lost bet, increase the stakes on the next bet to a level such that it will completely recover the losses incurred on the previous bet. If the next bet loses, increase the stakes on the next bet to a level such that it will completely recover the losses incurred on the previous two bets etc. (This is known as the Martingale principle and, provided that you have sufficient funds, eventually, you will win and completely recover any past losses.)

Psycho

[mister man]

Back all horses when they reach odd of 1.01 on BF on the basis that if their odds fall to 1.01, they can't possibly lose.

Back all favourites on the basis that, if they are favourites, they have the best chance of winning.

Back all steamers on the basis that all those punters who backed it and caused it to steam can't be wrong.

Lay all drifters on the basis that all those punters who layed it and caused it to drift can't be wrong.

Lay all horses that go into a big lead at the start of a race on the basis that they will run out of energy before the end and will get caught and passed.

in addition to stuarts vey helpful observations i would add that if you reverse the above and insert lay for back and back for lay, you will also have a losing strategy.

also its great when national figures contribute to the forum, so good on yer..

[psycho040253]

Back all horses when they reach odd of 1.01 on BF on the basis that if their odds fall to 1.01, they can't possibly lose.

Back all favourites on the basis that, if they are favourites, they have the best chance of winning.

Back all steamers on the basis that all those punters who backed it and caused it to steam can't be wrong.

Lay all drifters on the basis that all those punters who layed it and caused it to drift can't be wrong.

Lay all horses that go into a big lead at the start of a race on the basis that they will run out of energy before the end and will get caught and passed.

in addition to stuarts vey helpful observations i would add that if you reverse the above and insert lay for back and back for lay, you will also have a losing strategy.

also its great when national figures contribute to the forum, so good on yer..

Quite right Mister Man. Reversing my suggestions also lose. BTW, who is Stuart?

Psycho

[Iron]

There are stats posted elsewhere on this forum that show that laying the field at 1.01 can be a profitable strategy - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2949&p=41668#p41668. And the Racing Post once laid horses at 1.01 over an extended period, and made a 50% profit.

In practice, however, you may not always get matched when the price hits 1.01 but then goes on to lose. Betfair don't load the next day's markets at a set time each day, possibly so they can put in orders before anyone else gets a chance to.

Jeff

[Zenyatta]

Another big loser:

Play the ante-post markets, backing favourites weeks before a big race. The very height of retarded. That's probably why bookies love those ante-post markets.

[psycho040253]

There are stats posted elsewhere on this forum that show that laying the field at 1.01 can be a profitable strategy - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2949&p=41668#p41668. And the Racing Post once laid horses at 1.01 over an extended period, and made a 50% profit.

In practice, however, you may not always get matched when the price hits 1.01 but then goes on to lose. Betfair don't load the next day's markets at a set time each day, possibly so they can put in orders before anyone else gets a chance to.

Jeff

Jeff

That's the problem with stats and theory.

Did the RP assume that if the BF odds went to 1.01, then the bet would be automatically matched? If that is the case, then there's the reason for the profit.

In practice, if you lay a horse at 1.01 and it wins, your bet will nearly always get matched and you will lose your money. If you lay at 1.01 and you are behind a big queue of money and the odds begin to rise as it becomes obvious that the horse is going to lose, then you may not get matched. As a result, the win that theory predicted doesn't materialise. Now, you don't have the big win to offset all of those small losses.

Theory is great. But, if it doesn't work out in practice, it's just that - THEORY. Theoretical profits don't pay real bills.

Psycho

[Zenyatta]

Good points psycho, and that points to a general principle indicating another losing strategy:

'Do the opposite of a losing strategy, and you will have a winning strategy'

Obvious right? Nope, I'm afraid not, because 'reversed stupidity is not intelligence', or put more simply 'reversed stupidity results in even more stupidity'

[CaerMyrddin]

Brilliant post Zenyatta!

On my early days, I thought if I'm getting kicked with this way of trading, I'll try the opposite and it was far worse!

[psycho040253]

Good points psycho, and that points to a general principle indicating another losing strategy:

'Do the opposite of a losing strategy, and you will have a winning strategy'

Obvious right? Nope, I'm afraid not, because 'reversed stupidity is not intelligence', or put more simply 'reversed stupidity results in even more stupidity'

Hi Zenyatta

I had to laugh (in a good way) at your post.

Seriously, though, there's one exception.

Suppose that a laying system lost a lot of moolah.
Suppose also that the system had a high chi-squared value - indicating that the results were probably not a fluke.
Suppose that the actual strike rate of the system was way below the theoretical strike rate, given the average odds of the selections.

Then, converting it to a backing system may be a good strategy.

Psycho