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

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg