My two bobs worth.
The AAP prepost has a book of 150% plus. At jump the book is nominally 100% less the rake. In order to do this the prepost prices must as a whole lenghten to achieve the 100% (83% tab) (Betfair has commission out after the event).
Only those with the best chance will buck the lengthening trend in which case those lengthening will have to lengthen further. Herein lies the dilemna- how to pick the shortening ones and get better odds before they shorten to the point of negative return.

Beton, that's an interesting question you raise(if I have read it correctly!). What is your best guess / stab at an answer, If I may ask?

I have been looking at this very subject of late and come to the conclusion that dutch betting a small subset of firmers or those level at open or within + x% tolerance might do the trick. I have also been experimenting with 1 or 2 filters to narrow the list down i.e. narrowing the field down initially as per PP price and eliminating weaker selections from the end shortlist.

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

LG
The lowest PPP is no surety of being the opening fav. In a lot of cases this is far from truth. The opening fav is no guarantee of the starting fav. It is also very difficult to monitor as it is four dimensional involving all runners. So you are going to have to sort the horses most likely to succeed away from the field mostly likely to fail. Then you have to lock in your price before it shortens too much. Joe Public is a far better judge of a winner than credit is given. The more strength Joe Public puts on a horse the greater the SR. Down to 80% at $1.20 and 100% on BC.

Thanks for further clarification - please see above.

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

The shorter the odds - the higher the strike rate. At =>$1.50 the return is negative. This is not because of anything other than the rake. A $2 winner has odds of winning = to $2.36 and wins accordingly. At less than $1.50 the return nears breakeven and moves to positive because the mug punter starts to baulk
at only winning a little compared to the outlay. (yet they will put their money in the bank for a paltry 3%) But at $1.20 (off memory so don't shoot me) the strike rate is up to circa 82% (small base overall). In the case of Black Caviar and a 100% SR any bet is money for jam. I would like to see BC in a field where she is challenged. But BC is one off. We are in the business of continuity. The greater number of bets - the greater number of failures. So we have to (1) contain the failures and (2) get overs.

Gotcha.

So at SP =<$1.50 the return is break even or a small profit, and we can then increase that return to something greater than Bank interest using 1 or 2 simple filters and/or a recovery mechanism for the few and far loosers in between winning stretched, especially given what must be an 80%+ SR ?

This would be 1 example of a 'capital preservation play' then, as per my query-quandry on another thread. But we don't necessarily have to use SP as the main filter to achieve the same modest but almost guaranteed return, I guess - e.g. using price at open as the main filter but producing a shortlist of final selections to dutch(back based on opening price, regardless of price movement post open) might yield a similar return?? i.e. 5-10%. Would also be heaps more action / turnover than waiting for the sub $1.50 pops an having to automate the process to make it work.

Cheers LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

LG
the first thing is how many bets do you get at <$1.50? In reality there are few. Our objective is to pick the winner more often at greater odds. Getting firmers is not the answer. Not backing easers is not the answer either. Picking more winners is the only answer.
The trouble with stats is that they are overall and general as opposed to being specific. Do you back all horses in all races? Do you lay all horses in all races? These are the only situations that stats can mean anything.
These figures are for 5472 runners in 1419 races producing 868 winners FOR A 13% LOSS. roughly 4 horses per race. But these are more the races and the horses that we would pick and back. Of these 3010 eased 387 won for $2561, 930 firmed 149 won for $711, 337 stayed the same for 39 wins and $239, and 1106 were streamers at 242 wins and $990. But roughly the same number of winners eased as those that shortened. The shorteners have a better SR but a lower divvy. There still needs more to narrow it down.

Based on your stats, I think it may be helpful to go back to this point then, as you say...

There still needs more to narrow it down... you are going to have to sort the horses most likely to succeed away from the field mostly likely to fail

Let's assume this step can be done on a consistent basis and with a reasonable degree of success, at least for a subset of race types, venues, field sizes etc etc

Then all that remains would be to achieve overs then, and this could be as simple as...
1. taking the bookies openers for starters (best/simplest 'ratings' and free)
2. adjusting for the % book bias = minimum acceptable price($Pm) - any suggestions for this percentage?
3. setting up a SP Bet via BF whereby SP > $Pm

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB

Work In Progress

I assume that you mean the part regards narrowing the field down to the 'likely winners' or best chances. Would you say that this is the biggest single challenge regards making the punt pay = yield a + return over the long run??

LG

__________________
The trick isn't finding profitable angles, it's finding ones you will bet through the ups and downs - UB