Hi Chrome.

Using those selections of yours.

I would Lay bet 1 unit the lay if <=$4.50

Send off Back bet in-running for 2 units or less, to win if its in-running price drops to 2.00 or less.

If horse wins instead of falling over for us - we break even or some profit depending on price matched.

Thats better than copping a straight 3.5 unit loss if it should get up to win.
And not having a cover bet put on to offset it.

If Back bet is sent off & matched but does not end up winning.
We would lose only 1 unit. (2 Back - 1 Lay = 1)

Lay betting can be fun if betting 1 for 1
But it can become a nightmare if we are laying to odds & gets bit all the time on a bad day.

This method tries to address this.
And makes Lay betting this price range , more economical.

__________________
Cheers.

This is another approach that may appeal.

Lets assume the general consensus of the public is more accurate than the majority of rating services.

If this is so , the Rated Price by a rating service should show an advantage in putting more on the horses showing Unders & less on the Overs.

RULES
Top Rated Horse must also be the race Fav.

Bet 1.3 units if live price is less than rated accessed price.

Bet 1.0 units if live price is more than rated accessed price.


Example.
Taree Mon 5th Dec.
Only 3 Top rated matched up to Live Market Fav

Rce....RtdtPrc...LivPrc ... Bet Units
1/2.... 2.40 .... 3.00 .....1.0
4/3 ... 3.80 ..... 2.60 ....1.3
8/3 ... 3.70 ..... 3.10 ....1.3 W

Ret 4.00
O/L 3.60
Prof +.40
11% POT
As opposed to approx breaking even at level stakes .

Of course, it only works if the process matches up to the theory about the general public consensus being more accurate than the majority of rating rating services , which I feel must be true because most rating services, generally, fail to deliver a yearly profit, when doing this exercise to Favs .
Therefore...
Betting more on the Unders and less on the Overs, should put it into profit.

__________________
Cheers.