Bhagwan, the ratio with my single figure horses against double figures is a simple 30/35. I lay my single figures for a liability of $30 and all the double figures for $35 regardless of their Betfair price. I can't remember any outsider ever being in the red.

I won't reveal how I chose my qualifying races nor my neural settings but I would be very surprised if any neural setting/s were to end up losing because this method drastically reduces the race liability. And even when one of my selections does not win the race then a profit is made much more often than not. For example, there has currently been two qualifying races already run but none of my selections won - yet I'm showing a 100% P.O.T, or 10% P.O.T. depending on which method one calculates it.

Chrome, further to above I'd only really consider "sim-ing" if the previous days result was well outside one standard deviation. What has happened every other time is that you'll lose early and recover late. So if you know the range your working with you can turn a losing day into a winner by sitting a few out.

Sorry Travolta, seem to have taken over your thread :(

Thanks for that Michael.

That looks a very cunning strategy.

Not at all....this is a really good discussion :-)

I have been successfully laying the field with S.P. using a different system which is based on Betfair's prices.

Today there were four races that were "all green". Out of interest, in the fourth race I calculated the S.P. market. My calcs came to a 100% market, as would be expected.

I could easily accept my calcs were incorrect, but because the worst possible result was more than a 6% POT (based on the highest liability layed on any horse in the race) I would have had to badly miscalculate the value of the market. There were no late scratchings in any of the four races.

If all the four races did actually have a 100% market it would be mathematically impossible to have an "all green" race, seeing that the price does not change.

Any ideas?

SP on 18 of the 24 Syd, Melb, Bris races today, were over 100%.

Thanks, Mark. And three of my "all green" races were not from these venues, so maybe it's quite common. And maybe that's the reason my Lay The Field methods are doing so well.

But I think its raises a few questions:

Is this Lay anomaly common in England?

Is this because there's more "laying" than "backing" money or vice-versa?

Does the market even-out so that it often is less than 100%, otherwise backers are being disadvantaged?


I wonder how many punters are aware of this. It would be inconceivable that Betfair isn't, so hopefully the S.P. market won't/can't be adjusted.

Yes, it is the same in England.
It is because there is more back money pushing the market on firmers.
If you picture a 100% market, and then backers scramble to "get on" to the firmers, the firmers are heavily supported at the top end of the market, allowing a shift in market percentages.
It's simply a case of more markets over 100% than under, you just need enough liquidity and you have a set and forget edge.
Mostly punters aren't aware of this judging by the Betfair forum.
Betfair are accutely aware of this, which is why they bet into these markets themselves.
They are trying to make it unattractive to layers by pushing the prices up and increasing premium charges, because there isn't enough commission generated by field players.
My main concern is that they already know what's going on and every few months it becomes a little harder.
The clock is ticking when it will no longer become viable. :(

BF, b4 smoke & mirrors, now smoked glass in the mirrors! , soon?????

Thanks for that info, Chrome.

TAB employees (and employees of corporate bookies?) are not allowed to bet, one wonders why Betfair employees have no such restrictions. Disgruntled losers on Betfair could easily come up with conspiracy theories, some of which could have merit - such as Betfair employees manipulating their market.