1.01 loser statistics

[Yoshiii]

I (finally) finished my statistics on 1.01 losers so i hope it will be to some people interest. I think there is some very interesting information to find. A small price for all statistics but that only covers the costs i have because it was a lot of work

Check it out: www.gubbage.com and please tell me what you think

[giulio2010]

It` s very interesting. nice work.
I dont trade horses but, I have been lay all from 1st septemebr at 1.1 to take records as well. I am using a modified fibonacci series, Im up £572.15, average of over £6 a day. I may try 1.01.. starting 2morrow

[Yoshiii]

Nice. I have tried laying in place market all 1.01 horses because according to the statistics it should work and it does, but the problem is that you sometimes don't get the total amount MATCHED.

I think Betfair is on it themselves....

[Iron]

Hi Yoshiii

Is it possible to profit consistently over time by blindly laying the field at 1.01, or do you need to select particular horses and courses?

I believe the Racing Post did an experiment where they laid at 1.01, and came out with a very good profit.

What are your thoughts on the practice many people employ of laying the field at various prices between 1.01 and 2.0? Do you think it's profitable?

Jeff

I (finally) finished my statistics on 1.01 losers so i hope it will be to some people interest. I think there is some very interesting information to find. A small price for all statistics but that only covers the costs i have because it was a lot of work

Check it out: http://www.gubbage.com and please tell me what you think

[Iron]

Hi Giulio

I Googled 'modified Fibonacci series' and got this page: http://www.halexandria.org/dward094.htm

I'm not sure how it applies to laying the field, however. Could you explain please?

Also, to put your stats into context, what stakes are you using?

Thanks

Jeff

It` s very interesting. nice work.
I dont trade horses but, I have been lay all from 1st septemebr at 1.1 to take records as well. I am using a modified fibonacci series, Im up £572.15, average of over £6 a day. I may try 1.01.. starting 2morrow

[Yoshiii]

Well Jeff, that is the main problem here. If you look at the statistics of 2008&2009, you see this:

Average 1.01 losers per race 2008&2009

Win: 1,51%
Place: 4,01%
Total: 5,52%

Statistics wise, it should be 1% for the win market and around 3% for the place market (because there are 3 places that are paid, most of the time).

I tried this and it kinda worked, however i did not calculated in the factor that your full amount is not always matched and there is the problem.

You may fine tune it, but betting only on certain types of races or courses. The numbers of 2007 for example are shockingly different.

Average 1.01 losers per race 2007

Win: 2,34%
Place: 1,01%
Total: 3,35%

It seems that betting on the place market prior to 2008 wasn't done very much. But well, you can check out all these statistics yourself at my website (www.gubbage.com).

[Iron]

Average 1.01 losers per race 2008&2009

Win: 1,51%
Place: 4,01%
Total: 5,52%

Statistics wise, it should be 1% for the win market and around 3% for the place market (because there are 3 places that are paid, most of the time).

I tried this and it kinda worked, however i did not calculated in the factor that your full amount is not always matched and there is the problem.

Hi Yoshiii

I think the other problem is that, by laying at 1.01, you are effectively backing at 100-1. When you back horses at 6-1, long losing streaks are a statistical inevitability. So, although I'm no statistician, it may be the case that it's far from certain that you'll make a profit during any given year from this method, even if you could be sure always of getting matched.

You may fine tune it, but betting only on certain types of races or courses. The numbers of 2007 for example are shockingly different.

Average 1.01 losers per race 2007

Win: 2,34%
Place: 1,01%
Total: 3,35%

Interesting - that would suggest that the in-play market has become more efficient.

I know that in-play betting on the place market was only introduced a few years ago, so that may explain the 2007 place figures.

Jeff

[LeTiss]

I used to lay goals over / under when the price was less than 1.20

I had good, but unspectacular profits. Once I started paying PC the profit margins became too tight to bother with.

There's definitely some mileage though in laying very short prices in a variety of differing markets

[Yoshiii]

I think the other problem is that, by laying at 1.01, you are effectively backing at 100-1. When you back horses at 6-1, long losing streaks are a statistical inevitability. So, although I'm no statistician, it may be the case that it's far from certain that you'll make a profit during any given year from this method, even if you could be sure always of getting matched.

Well you are right that laying 1.01 is essentially backing at 100/1 but that doesn't mean you can't make profit. If 6/1 is not profitable than an other odd might be. It is not that simple to say. If what you say is true, then every price should, on the long term, happen as much as it is worth and you will lose because of commission. I don't believe that

I know that in-play betting on the place market was only introduced a few years ago, so that may explain the 2007 place figures.

You might be right, however my data starts at june 2004 and there are place betting 1.01 losers too. Always for small amounts though and it doesn't show IN PLAY so it might be pre-race betting but who would back a horse at 1.01 pre-race?

It is true that the market has switched. In 2004,2005,2006,2007 you can see that most of the gubbings happen in the win-market and then it suddenly switches to the place market in 2008 and onwards.

[Iron]

Well you are right that laying 1.01 is essentially backing at 100/1 but that doesn't mean you can't make profit. If 6/1 is not profitable than an other odd might be. It is not that simple to say. If what you say is true, then every price should, on the long term, happen as much as it is worth and you will lose because of commission. I don't believe that

Hi Yoshiii

I'm not saying that it's not a profitable strategy.

All I'm saying is that, if we assume that you have a long-term edge, at odds of 100-1 you may need to place a heck of a lot of bets before you make a profit!

Also, is it not possible that the edge that your statistics has suggested exists is due to random chance? I'm not a statistician, so I can't say what degree of confidence you can have in them. I know your sample size is very large, but we are talking about a statistical outlier, so the two things may cancel each other out.

Jeff

[Yoshiii]

That might be true. However, with 3000 1.01 losers over 68.215 races with an average (in win-market) of 1.9% 1.01 losers per race (and nothing below 1.5%) I don't believe it's random chance. Then there should be some years where it goes to 0.5% or even lower to eventually even out to the 1% it should statistically be.

Hey, i'm not a statistician either, just merely showing some data i have gathered. You can do whatever you want with it

[giulio2010]

Hi Giulio

I Googled 'modified Fibonacci series' and got this page: http://www.halexandria.org/dward094.htm

I'm not sure how it applies to laying the field, however. Could you explain please?

Also, to put your stats into context, what stakes are you using?

Thanks

Jeff

It` s very interesting. nice work.
I dont trade horses but, I have been lay all from 1st septemebr at 1.1 to take records as well. I am using a modified fibonacci series, Im up £572.15, average of over £6 a day. I may try 1.01.. starting 2morrow

the fibonacci series goes like that 0,1,1,3,5,8,13,21,34,55 etc but, if you had 10/1 or 1.10 odds you can bet 7 times the same ammount of money on the 1st line of the series to be in profit if the event will occur.
In my case i work out a series more appropriate for laying the field at 1.1.
0.2p,[email protected]=-0.20p
0.2p, [email protected]=+£1.8
0.2p,[email protected]=-0.40p
0.2p, [email protected]=+£1.6
0.2p,[email protected]=-0.60p
0.2p, [email protected]=+£1.4
0.2p,[email protected]=-0.80p
0.2p, [email protected]=+£1.2
0.3p,[email protected]=-£1.10
0.3p, [email protected]=+£0.9p
This is just an example. Be aware that you can go 2 days without a single hit so people loses interests very quickly. You must be patience, you must keep the plan on, you must have cash available and you must be prepared to lose it as well. the same strategys applies for fooball matches.

[Euler]

Generically the market is less efficient at very short odds or very high odds. I often back at very high odds as most people can't be bothered to wait for those odds and winners to even out over time and ignore them. Most like to lay at very short odds for an outside chance.

[PeterLe]

The problem with 1.01 lays is that there will (in the main) be someone in front of you in the que...(unless you can submit your bets as soon as the market is available on Betfair)..
I had my first 1.01 on the 26th May ((The Nifty Fox at Ary), although I had a nice sum matched, it wasn't all matched..

It's got to be the equivalent of a hole in one on golf?!

[andyfuller]

There is quite an important factor that makes all of these stats worthless imo that has not been considered. May the hunt for that factor begin....