I'm trying out a laying system with the horses being in the lower priced end of the spectrum (say under $10) and are often the favourites.

I'm trying to see the difference between laying level stakes or laying to liability but I am not sure how I can get a fair comparison.

At the moment my testing is to lay for $1 level stakes meaning that when my lay bet wins (horse loses) I win say $0.95 (5% tax taken out) but I lose $1.50 for a $2.50 horse or $5 for a $6 horse if my lay bet loses.

However if laying to liability what would the liability amount be to get a fair comparison (leaving aside the $30 minimum liability for now) with just laying level stakes for $1?

For the above example if I lay to say $6 liability it will cost me $6 for every losing bet but I would win $4 for the $2.50 horse or $1.20 for the $6 horse.
I would also win $12 if a $1.50 horse loses.

I hope that makes sense.

__________________
Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish it. The time will pass anyway.”

― Earl Nightingale

Apart from running both laying strategies over the same set up results i am not sure, i have always preferred to lay to a payout figure specially with the lower end of the market.

__________________
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
_______________________________________________

Level stakes when laying is actually by using a liability.

When you do your first method $1 on a $2.50 and lost $1.50 that is actually not level stakes as your loss varies. Its not level.

In my opinion I have seen people fool themselves with the variability in the returns. They think they are going well but when you convert it back to the liability method they are actually losing. Long term I have seen those people fail.

IMHO use the liability method only as you are keeping your losses the same and your profit variable (which is the same as backing with a set amount).

Keep records of how both go, and then you'll have to decide if you want to go with the higher cash return or the higher POT %.

Thanks to everyone for your replies.

UB, I see what you mean with the two methods - maybe I have them around the wrong way. Knowing your losses are the same each time makes more sense than losing 50c one minute but $10 the next.

I suppose what I am asking is how can you compare the two methods to see which one is going better than the other? Is it a matter of averaging out the odds for the losing and/or winning bets?

__________________
Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish it. The time will pass anyway.”

― Earl Nightingale

As Mark said its either Profit on turnover or just plain $'s made for comparison.
I was add drawdown to that analysis.

If you went the liability method and lost 4 times you would lose 4 units. If you lose 4 horses at $5, $10 ,$4 and $6 then you have lost 25 units using the other staking.