Best Staking Method for Laying Tennis Players

[globi166]

Hi all,

I'm looking to get some advice on the best staking method for laying tennis players, specifically those priced around 1.6 and below.

Would you recommend staking:

By liability ?

Using a fixed stake ?

Or based on book% ?


I'm trying to find the most effective and sustainable approach over time. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

[Dallas]

I prefer to use 'By liability' especially at lower prices

[globi166]

I prefer to use 'By liability' especially at lower prices

Ok thanks. Tennis trading seems quite simple and pretty straightforward or I'm quite naive to think it is ?

[globi166]

I prefer to use 'By liability' especially at lower prices

So how about this theoretical situation: lets say I lay at odds 1.5 ( by liability) at score 30-30 if scores moves to 40-30 I trade out for loss and 30-AD for profit. If i do the same at odds 1.15 my liability is still the same however profit/loss much greater.

[Euler]

Liability equalises your profit minus your risk. If you lay something at really short odds, you will lose often, so you want a big payoff when it occurs. This translates directly into the payoff you get when trading.

[globi166]

Liability equals your profit minus your risk. If you lay something at really short odds, you will lose often, so you want a big payoff when it occurs. This translates directly into the payoff you get when trading.

Is not better to trade by tick size? in this case, have it all even instead different type of volatility at range of odds 1.5 to lets say 1.95 vs odd 1.06 to 1.5 ?

[globi166]

Liability equals your profit minus your risk. If you lay something at really short odds, you will lose often, so you want a big payoff when it occurs. This translates directly into the payoff you get when trading.

Ok I think I get what you mean more or less. However do you reckon is a good idea to change the stake then? I still trade by liability but use smaller stakes for lower odds ?

[globi166]

Maybe I need to simplify my question:

If I make multiple trades in one tennis match using a staking method based on liability, I’m always risking the same amount per trade. However, my profit and loss vary significantly depending on the odds — for example, trading between 1.10 and 1.05 is very different from trading between 1.95 and 1.90.

Even though the number of ticks is the same, the financial outcome isn’t.

So my question is:
Is it wise to use a smaller liability at very low odds (e.g., 1.05–1.10) compared to higher odds, even when trading within the same match?

[Euler]

Working to a fixed liability will allow you to cap your maximum loss, but, theoretically, have unlimited profits, which is why I prefer to do this.

[ShaunWhite]

... and it stops higher priced trades from being disproportionately impactful.

[Euler]

... and it stops higher priced trades from being disproportionately impactful.

I agree is balances strike rate with payoff.

[globi166]

... and it stops higher priced trades from being disproportionately impactful.

But isn't reversed true as well ?

Lower price for to lay 1.03 e.g means my stake size is increasing where my chances of profit are decreasing and as my chances of profit increasing at higher odds my stake is getting smaller.

I don't know why I find so difficult to understand what you are both saying. I'm using chat gpt to help me lol and he says:

You're accounting for the steep cost of tick movement at short odds, not just the theoretical floor.

That forum reply gave the standard wisdom — and it's sound.
You're asking a next-level question about how risk behaves non-linearly across the odds ladder.

And you’re absolutely right to think that blindly using the same liability at 1.05 and 2.00 produces very different real-world exposure.

Thanks for your patience and replies.

[sionascaig]

Lower price for to lay 1.03 e.g means my stake size is increasing where my chances of profit are decreasing and as my chances of profit increasing at higher odds my stake is getting smaller.

Stake may increase (at low prices) when liability staking but your "liability" does not.

If laying say a 1.1 fav you are doing so in the hope of a big upswing & potentially a profit of many multiples of your liability.

If the upswing does not occur & the fav dominates the game (say wins 1st set) the price drop (in ticks) is limited v's the potential huge upside.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying but when I read the bit quoted above you have it the wrong way round...

==> potential profit (vs loss) is increasing when laying at low prices IF you expect volatility in the price

[globi166]

Lower price for to lay 1.03 e.g means my stake size is increasing where my chances of profit are decreasing and as my chances of profit increasing at higher odds my stake is getting smaller.

Stake may increase (at low prices) when liability staking but your "liability" does not.

If laying say a 1.1 fav you are doing so in the hope of a big upswing & potentially a profit of many multiples of your liability.

If the upswing does not occur & the fav dominates the game (say wins 1st set) the price drop (in ticks) is limited v's the potential huge upside.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying but when I read the bit quoted above you have it the wrong way round...

==> potential profit (vs loss) is increasing when laying at low prices IF you expect volatility in the price

That’s right — my liability stays the same, but if I trade at odds of 1.02, even a 2-tick move against me can wipe out the entire liability. In contrast, at odds of 1.95, even a 20-tick move results in only a small loss relative to the liability. In trading risking it all on one trade ?

[ShaunWhite]

That’s right — my liability stays the same, but if I trade at odds of 1.02, even a 2-tick move against me can wipe out the entire liability. In contrast, at odds of 1.95, even a 20-tick move results in only a small loss relative to the liability. In trading risking it all on one trade ?

The maths breaks down on the edge cases close to 1.01 and 1000 no matter what you're staking because you're not leaving any room for movement. Knock up a spreadsheet with a line for each ladder step and the pl between each step and the next, for both a fixed stake and a stake of X / (price-1), chart them, and you'll see the difference and how the price extremes are different to the majority of the ladder.