Need Help - Please

[Anna List]

I have two systems - a backing and a laying system which are independent of each other. Each selects about a dozen horses per day.

On average, once a day, they will select the same horse.

When this happens, do I:

A) Ignore the selection?

B) Go with the system with the highest ROI?

C) Go with the system with the highest strike rate?

D) None of the above (please specify).

An explanation as to your reasoning behind your selection would be much appreciated.

I could test to determine the answer but with only one common selection per day, it will take forever to get enough data.

Anna.

[ShaunWhite]

A. If it's both backable and layable it's clearly not a strong contenter for either method.

[Anna List]

A. If it's both backable and layable it's clearly not a strong contenter for either method.

Good answer.

My thanks.

[jimibt]

A. If it's both backable and layable it's clearly not a strong contenter for either method.

Good answer.

My thanks.

it of course depends. if both have an offset trade and both exit in profit, then it is entirely possible to adopt this approach (same runner, two strats). however, as you'll have found, the exit point is very tricky on such closely contended runners and more times than not, you'll exit the wrong side on both. the trick really is to play with you8r offsets and/or look at both rules to see if there's a switch that can determine when to ignore the runner on each rule.

[ShaunWhite]

I read the question as a backing or laying strategy.... Jim's answer is no doubt a clever one from a clever fella but what a lot of agro and risk to try and make a special case for 8% of your picks.

[Anna List]

A. If it's both backable and layable it's clearly not a strong contenter for either method.

Good answer.

My thanks.

it of course depends. if both have an offset trade and both exit in profit, then it is entirely possible to adopt this approach (same runner, two strats). however, as you'll have found, the exit point is very tricky on such closely contended runners and more times than not, you'll exit the wrong side on both. the trick really is to play with you8r offsets and/or look at both rules to see if there's a switch that can determine when to ignore the runner on each rule.

Jimibt

My systems are straight laying and straight backing. No trading.

Anna

[Anna List]

I read the question as a backing or laying strategy.... Jim's answer is no doubt a clever one from a clever fella but what a lot of agro and risk to try and make a special case for 8% of your picks.

Shaun

I have one backing system and one laying system. They each identify about a dozen selections per day. On average, that's about 23 a day - which, on the face of it, is more than ample. However, it's not that simple - well, it never is, is it?

I have very strict rules when it comes to odds. If I can't get matched at the odds I want, I cancel the bet. In a day, I'm lucky if I get 6 bets matched. Another selection would be very much appreciated.

Any selection which is common to both systems is currently ignored because I have no idea what to do with it. I just thought that one of you guys would have some kind of mathematical jiggery pokery which would allow me to determine whether it is better to back or lay the selection.

[Dallas]

If your getting about 6 matches from 20+ selections that suggests your asking for prices well outside the current odds if so why not try placing both a back and lay then have the other cancelled once one is matched.

If both your systems are profitable long term then it should nt make any difference if its backed or layed, your criteria will of identified it and it will of been matched at the odds you wanted

[Anna List]

If your getting about 6 matches from 20+ selections that suggests your asking for prices well outside the current odds if so why not try placing both a back and lay then have the other cancelled once one is matched.

If both your systems are profitable long term then it should nt make any difference if its backed or layed, your criteria will of identified it and it will of been matched at the odds you wanted

Thanks for your response Dallas.

Anna

[ajdal]

Let's say a horse was 10/1 and trained by A.Trainer who had a 24% strike rate with Nov Hurdlers after a 30 day break, but also horses that are held up and being dropped in distance in races with 10 or more runners had a 3% strike rate at that particular track and your runner qualified on both counts and appeared to offer value as both a bet and lay...

Then you can either run both systems independently, and do as you say, both back and lay (each system probably has a different stake system??)... or choose to side with the stronger and more reliable stat... or take the stronger stat as an initial entry point and attempt to trade the beast and generate a 'free bet' as such to take care of (a partial amount?) of the back side of the equation, but the later choice obviously comes with its own inherent risk; but since you were going to back/lay the animal anyway the worse that can happen is you 'miss out' on an improved price... but then again, who do you know that always gets the very best price??

Or, of course, as one of my favourite posters summarised: 'leave this one alone'... but that is a difficult choice when following systems that are generating such a high frequency of contradiction.

[Anna List]

Let's say a horse was 10/1 and trained by A.Trainer who had a 24% strike rate with Nov Hurdlers after a 30 day break, but also horses that are held up and being dropped in distance in races with 10 or more runners had a 3% strike rate at that particular track and your runner qualified on both counts and appeared to offer value as both a bet and lay...

Then you can either run both systems independently, and do as you say, both back and lay (each system probably has a different stake system??)... or choose to side with the stronger and more reliable stat... or take the stronger stat as an initial entry point and attempt to trade the beast and generate a 'free bet' as such to take care of (a partial amount?) of the back side of the equation, but the later choice obviously comes with its own inherent risk; but since you were going to back/lay the animal anyway the worse that can happen is you 'miss out' on an improved price... but then again, who do you know that always gets the very best price??

Or, of course, as one of my favourite posters summarised: 'leave this one alone'... but that is a difficult choice when following systems that are generating such a high frequency of contradiction.

Thank you for your input, Ajdal.