Testing Strategies - Why i should not go "in-play"

[Wendz09]

Why I should not go “In-Play”

This may be obvious to the more experienced traders and only after playing with numbers I have come to realise the following:

1. One outcome or result that has a high chance of success will always give you a return profit that is significantly lower than your stake. In other words you risk more of your bank to get back a tiny amount. Let’s use a quick example…

Opening Bank = £100
Match is… Manchester Utd v Blackpool
Man Utd to win is 1.38 (Score is 1-0 after 70mins)
Looks like Man Utd will win right?

So you place a back bet of £80 @ 1.38 (Potential win of approx £25.84 after commission)

What you have just done is risk 80% to win 15% of your bank…Or another way to look at it is @1.38 odds you would only ever win approx 20% of your stake irrespective of the amount of your stake.

Now if you a trader you will be looking to “green up” when the lay odds drop below 1.38 so that you win something whether Man Utd wins the game or they draw or heaven forbid…lose J.

Problem is you still risking 80% of your bank until odds drop below 1.38 and even then how much would you settle for in the “green up” stage? Keep in mind that you risking 80% to now get back less than 7% of your bank and at any moment Blackpool could score and you would lose your entire stake. Is winning anything between 0-7% worth risking 80%?

2. An outcome or result that happens frequently will always have really low starting odds. You could lay at these really low odds and wait till back odds are significantly higher hoping that the result will not occur. Lets use an example to fully grasp this idea.

Bank = £100
Match is Everton v Fulham
You expect this to be goal less so you lay the “at least 1 goal” market at odds of 1.10 expecting to green up when you reach back odds of say 1.38.

Therefore you lay £70 @ 1.10 risking £7 or 7% of your bank.

Then you sit and wait for at least 50mins hoping no one scores. If they do you’ve just lost 7% of your entire bank. How many times can you afford to lose 7% of your entire bank?

If you green up by backing @ 1.38 you win about £12.50.

Is risking 7% of your bank worth a 12.50% growth on bank? You would be very lucky to get a chance to green up especially as goal less draws have a 12% success rate this season so far (see soccer stats.com).

With “in-play” trading you are always at a very high risk. So what’s the solution?

You need to manage risk!

I want you to forget about trading the football markets “in-play”, it’s too risky for your bank as a beginner. Instead turn your focus to the “pre-race” Horses Market. That’s right, I said Horses market, don’t worry about knowing where they race or what type of grass they racing on or whether they first timers…it’s all totally irrelevant when it comes to pre race trading.

The odd movements “pre-race” allow you enough time to manage risk effectively and that’s exactly what we as traders want.

[Cran]

One outcome or result that has a high chance of success will always give you a return profit that is significantly lower than your stake

Yeah... so what?

Regardless of pre event or in play, what matters is that:

(no. of wins x average green) > (no. of losses x average red)

It's up to each trader to find a method of trading that does this, in whatever market(s) they find it, and to stake an appropriate % of bank size according to hit rate and return.

[Wendz09]

Yeah... so what?

Regardless of pre event or in play, what matters is that:

(no. of wins x average green) > (no. of losses x average red)

Hi Cran, i thought about that. Problem is when i run that scenario above the bank goes bust espescially if it's a small starting bank.

Point i'm trying to make in my post above is that if you trade pre race horses you can at least minimise the loss by using a stop loss. With soccer match inplay betting you stand a chance of losing a significant proportion of your bank at any time if the bet goes against you.

Do you not agree that "in-play" trading is extremely risky?

[Cran]

It's risky if you are gambling, but if you have a strategy and limit your liability it doesn't have to be.

The problem with pre race horses is that lots of things can move the market, and the reasons for big moves are often unknown.

I agree that there's a risk with having open trades when a goal can move the odds a long way, but if that is accounted for in the strategy and probability is on your side, then long term you should make a profit.

Like a casino for example, they don't really care when they pay out big wins because they know over time they take in more than they pay out.

There's risks in both.

[trinityman]

I agree that there is no value in the above mentioned bets, this does not mean there isn't value in-play. I frequently profit from backing teams when they are 'finished' and priced at 30/1 or higher and only a goal down (take Arsenal against Barcelona recently). When they equalize I green up, unless the stake is very small as it was when i backed Arsenal for 4 euro against Barcelona in the first leg and got something around 270 euro profit as they were 70/1ish. In the second leg I did the same thing but greened up for a lot less.

I wonder if you backed every team in the premiership that hit 200/1 would you see a profit? maybe. Basically if you want to find value in-play you have to look at backing long or laying short not vice-versa. It's astounding how many horses go to 1.01,1.02, and lose. I would never back a horse at this price but if watching a race and I spot a potential challenger I often lay at 1.05.

Head over to betfair racing results and check what would have happened had you laid 100 on every horse that hit 1.05 in the first few weeks of 2011, You would have lost a lot of fivers but made a lot of hundreds.

Don't dismiss in-play so easily. Like anything else it comes down to value.

[shadowninja]

The size of the bank is irrelevant if you employ good money management skills. And the risk vs reward is meaningless without knowing probability of success.

Take your first example, if you are only going for 15% but Man U are playing very strongly, then it's a low risk bet. If, however, you routinely bet at 1.38 with no regard for what is going on, then expect to break even over 1,000 bets (less commission).

The question any trader or bettor should ask is: what is my edge?

[Temujin]

I agree that there is no value in the above mentioned bets, this does not mean there isn't value in-play. I frequently profit from backing teams when they are 'finished' and priced at 30/1 or higher and only a goal down (take Arsenal against Barcelona recently). When they equalize I green up, unless the stake is very small as it was when i backed Arsenal for 4 euro against Barcelona in the first leg and got something around 270 euro profit as they were 70/1ish. In the second leg I did the same thing but greened up for a lot less.

I wonder if you backed every team in the premiership that hit 200/1 would you see a profit? maybe. Basically if you want to find value in-play you have to look at backing long or laying short not vice-versa. It's astounding how many horses go to 1.01,1.02, and lose. I would never back a horse at this price but if watching a race and I spot a potential challenger I often lay at 1.05.

Head over to betfair racing results and check what would have happened had you laid 100 on every horse that hit 1.05 in the first few weeks of 2011, You would have lost a lot of fivers but made a lot of hundreds.

Don't dismiss in-play so easily. Like anything else it comes down to value.

A high price doesn't indicate value. The price compared with chance of something happening does.
Don't mistake low odds with no value. Sometimes if you can get 1.01 about something, you are getting huge value.... Sometimes you are not.

[trinityman]

A high price doesn't indicate value. The price compared with chance of something happening does.
Don't mistake low odds with no value. Sometimes if you can get 1.01 about something, you are getting huge value.... Sometimes you are not.

I totally agree. If England are 1000/1 to win the world cup before qualification then this does not constitute value as they ain't gonna win it.* However if you can get 1.01 on Fergie hurling criticism at a referee who makes a decision against United then re-mortgage your house and back back back.

A high price that is too high indicates value (or too low for a lay bet). A price that is too high can be 70/1 or indeed it can also be 1.01. As Temujin rightly says the price compared with the chance of something happening indicates value. So if Arsenal are a goal down against Barca and hit 70/1 then I ask myself if given the chance to equalise (and lower the 70/1) then would they be able to do this more often than once in 70 attempts.

Value can of course change with price and circumstances. I found 1.7 for over 2.5 goals in Madrid Lyon to be bad value, given the history of the tie, the low scoring associated with the French teams etc. When i saw 2.48 on 60 mins with Madrid a goal to the good then I found this to be very good value as Lyon were going to have to push for an equaliser and subsequently either get it or leave the door open for Real to counter. (and the fact that more goals are scored in the last half hour.)

I also thought that Liverpool would score a goal last night

*England to win the world cup at 1000/1 would represent exceptional value and I am merely being facetious. In fact a very good strategy is to back England before tournaments and lay them when their price drops.

[LuckyYou]

I agree that there is no value in the above mentioned bets, this does not mean there isn't value in-play. I frequently profit from backing teams when they are 'finished' and priced at 30/1 or higher and only a goal down (take Arsenal against Barcelona recently). When they equalize I green up, unless the stake is very small as it was when i backed Arsenal for 4 euro against Barcelona in the first leg and got something around 270 euro profit as they were 70/1ish. In the second leg I did the same thing but greened up for a lot less.

I wonder if you backed every team in the premiership that hit 200/1 would you see a profit? maybe. Basically if you want to find value in-play you have to look at backing long or laying short not vice-versa. It's astounding how many horses go to 1.01,1.02, and lose. I would never back a horse at this price but if watching a race and I spot a potential challenger I often lay at 1.05.

Head over to betfair racing results and check what would have happened had you laid 100 on every horse that hit 1.05 in the first few weeks of 2011, You would have lost a lot of fivers but made a lot of hundreds.

Don't dismiss in-play so easily. Like anything else it comes down to value.

The frequency of this thing is very various.
If you lay at low odds this means that you are backing at too big odds. This means that you don't have an idea will you lose or win in long term - you are just doing a wild guess. But the problem is that you may hit a too long run of loses when you are laying at low odds. This may kill your bank. Its the same with backing at low odds - you may hit good for time, but if you get 3-4 times lose and the odds you are backing is too low you will blow up your bank for a second. With other words - don't do that - you are risking too too much ( you even doesn't have an idea). Because ok you hit a long run of lay at 1.05 but imagine 1000 games that 1.05 just win and win and win. This is my point of view - I am just saying what I think.
From that matter I think the best way for achieving a profit is to back/lay at odds around 2. The asian handicap based on odds 2 is not a fake... Most of the professional gamblers (because you are all talking about betting here not trading!) use the asian handicap system to bet.
However If I had to choose between backing a low odds or Laying em i would 100% choose to lay em...
And after all - listen to the guy - don't waste your time by betting (in-play trading is betting!) - try to learn to trade! No matter will you trade horses, tennis, basketball - do it before the game start!
I am going to sleep now good night

[Temujin]

If you could get 1.01 about a cricket match with the team that is 50 runs in front with 1 over to go, would you back it or lay it?

Yes, it is low odds, but it is massive value, and without huge corruption will NEVER happen, yet you are getting 1.01 for it? TBH, I would back it at 1.001.

Value is value, and as long as your money management is sound, and you are getting value about your entry points, then you will end up in profit.

Too many people worry about the odds, and not the value. The value in a price is the weighted profit zone where you are more likely to make money.

Let us just say you are doing Soccer. Your strategy is to lay the first scoring team (just making this up, not suggesting it as a strategy). Now the team goes from 2.50, to scoring 1 goal, and coming in to 2.45. You expected it would come into 1.5 judging by the game, but your strategy says you lay.

What do you do?
Simple answer is back. You have represented huge value, and can't afford not to open with a back bet on them.

TBH I don't really care what your strategies are. But the road to failure isn't anything to do with the price you take in regards to whether you are backing or laying dependant on the odds, it is if those odds represent value or not.

Regardless of your sport and strategy, the number 1 priority must always be entry point must be value. The market will sort itself out eventually, and if you are always getting value, you are always trading green when it does.

No point laying 1.01 about something with a 1/1000 chance of happening. Yes, you are risking very little in comparison with your gain, but your gain represents little in regards to its chances.


Value is value, regardless of what odds it represents.

[Zeme]

Great Betfair software!

[pmcs1975]

The fantastic geeks

Goodnight everyone, I now thank the Geeks as the software is fantastic ...:Brilliant

[booga13]

Wendz,
Couldn't agree more about the staying away from in-play football, at best I've broken even, pre-race horses have worked out much better for me.

[Gilles1975]

It's risky if you are gambling, but if you have a strategy and limit your liability it doesn't have to be.

The problem with pre race horses is that lots of things can move the market, and the reasons for big moves are often unknown.

I agree that there's a risk with having open trades when a goal can move the odds a long way, but if that is accounted for in the strategy and probability is on your side, then long term you should make a profit.

Like a casino for example, they don't really care when they pay out big wins because they know over time they take in more than they pay out.

There's risks in both.

I agree with what you're saying about pre-race horse trading, I tried this but the market is way too unpredictable. For example I would lay the horse if the money on the lay side was heavier but then suddenly and for no apparent reason, big money would enter the market on the back side leaving me with a trading loss. I was only trialing with a 2 quid stake but what I described above happened too often for my liking.
As yet i haven't tried in play horse trading, but I have watched the in-play ladder and it does seem more predictable, if the price is on its way down it goes one way rather than constantly fluctuating. I might give in play a try at minimum stakes and see how it goes.

[balearic trader]

Does anyone have a link to where i can find stats on horses that reach certain odds, for example 1.05 and lower and then go on to lose?