Here is an interesting question. I already know my answer and I know what I do but I am interested in seeing what others would do in the same circumstances.

I have a laying method (which will not be diclosed) that has the following results:

I have done calculations on 5% commission. All selections are under $15 so there are no long shots. Odds used are betfair prices not tote prices.

Selections: 1137
Winners : 76
Expected Winners (based on odds) : 150.24
Strike rate for laying : 93%
Profit Laying to lose $100 on every selection : $10,201
Profit Laying $100 on every selection : $43,756

Or you can add 2 filters and get the following results:

Selections: 300
Winners : 0
Expected Winners (based on odds) : 40.44
Strike rate for laying : 100%
Profit Laying to lose $100 on every selection : $3841
Profit Laying $100 on every selection : $28,595

I have provided the two profits for each selection method as people like to lay different ways but keep in mind the risk level of each is very different.

Which of the selection methods would you choose ?

I would choose the top one, what time period is this over

__________________
One Drive

"If the corporates are treating you poorly , just go elsewhere."
"If they need you , they will soon find out."
"If you need them , you will soon find out." --moeee
_______________________________________________

Agreed Shaun...

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

I'd choose the second one. Why take the golden eggs when you can have the goose? Although the zero winners has probably swayed me. I've never heard of 300 selections with zero winners. They must be SOME filters.

I would choose the top method. Mainly because there is almost four times the action, and the more selections each day would generally mean the chances of having a bad day are reduced.

In real life I would use both systems in tandem.

What's the average price of runners laid for each method?

On info given I would lean slightly towards the first one, but as Michael says use both.

in option 2 your selections are at 40.44/300 which implies and average price of $7.42. results Nil winners.



in option 1 it is 150/1137 which implies an avareage price of $7.57. and resluts in on average 92 winners.
id take em both !!!!!!!!


why dont you let me use it for 12 months and i will then have more time to give you a serious answer.

This is over 8 months (unfortunately my db with betair prices became corrupted before this point).

The methods use ratings which I have devised myself.

The ratings are based on horses who have run against each other previously, or whose form lines are linked through mulitple entry points from past races. For example if horse 1 raced horse 2 last start and Horse 3 raced horse 4 last start (in a different race) but sometime previously horse 2 raced horse 3 then I can produce a rating figure. I go many more levels deeper then that though (up to 10 levels of form comparison) and take into account a lot of factors. Its not something easily reproduceable by 95% of punters fortunately for me.

But enough of that ... I was interested in what peopl would take. Personally I take the 300 selections (ie the extra filters). The reasoning is as follows (feel free to disagree):

1. My risk tolerance is very low. I want to be 99% confident the horse I bet on will win and 99% confident the horse I lay will lose.

2. Methods/filters alwas tend to revert to some historic mean which is not apparent to us at the point we start betting. I would say they an swing by up to 10% in some instances. 300 bets is my starting criteria for a laying method and it needs to have less then 2 winners under $15. This gives me confident that even if its true strike rate was higher it would still be profitable.

It takes a lot of work to find these type of lay/bet systems and I don't think many people would put in the time necessary.

1st one for me.
Any hints on the filters, they must be bottlers.

__________________
Jose'.

Do I win anything for picking the winner (or laying the loser )???