I should explain my strategy of limiting exposure a little more as it's not a case of "just bet less" or "you're just making it worse by giving back profit"
Assume the price I can back at is $2.60
Assume the price I can lay at is $2.70
Assume I lay the horse for $50.00 therefore if it wins I lose $85.00, or if it loses I win equal to my stake of $50.00.
Now my risk is $2.70, but I want even money risk and no more.
So I back it at $2.60 x $13.50.
My outlay on this runner is now $63.50, if it loses I win $36.50
If it wins I lose $63.50 or odds of even money.
Now assuming that 30% of favourites win and 70% lose, in the long run I win $653.00 for every 100 races wagered on.
My profit is reduced but so is my exposure.
So why not just lay for $63.50 instead?
Because I stand to lose $107.95 everytime a winner hits and only win $63.50 each time a lay is successful.
My profit is almost halved but so is my drawdown should a bad run of winners ensue.
However, this will only work up to a certain price before it becomes unprofitable. Also assumed is that you are laying at a profitable price in the longrun.
It might be that someone is thinking, why not just use lay amount of $36.50?
Because I can turnover more money and get an extra reduction in commission which adds a lot more to the bottom line when bet size is three or four figures
