Choosing a Staking System for Laying the Favourite

[IrishTW]

Hi all, After some analysis on historical odds of a sporting event which in my opinion has a large number of outsider wins / favourites losing, I have realised based on a sample of data that I would be in profit if I took the outsider in every match (draw is not an option) to a level stake, and this includes after subtraction of 5% betfair commision. However, "level stake" has two meanings: #1. I can lay the favourite to a level stake, e.g. fav's odds are 1.33, my liability is 0.33 units and I can make 1 unit, etc #2. I can back the outsider to a level stake, e.g. fav's odds are 1.33, outsiders odds are 4, I make 3 units profit if outsider wins and potentially lose 1 unit. Obviously, the unit stake for #1 would be made higher than the unit stake for #2. As far as I can realise, #1 is a safer system, I make an equal profit for each outsider who wins, with only a small loss on each when the hot favs win. #2 has the potential for much greater profit as there is the possibility to make many units profit when a big-odds outsider wins, however I will lose full stake every time a fav wins, whether the favs odds are 1.1 or 1.7. (I intend to filter out results where the both sides of the market are >1.85 as I feel favouritism is negligible there) . On the data I have analysed so far, with more to follow, #1 would have returned 3.53 units #2 would have returned 20.33 units over the games in question. However over half of #2's profit comes from a win at odds greater than 12. So basically my question is Is there a way of choosing a unit stake that makes #1 and #2 identical?

[froment]

Re: Choosing a Staking System for Laying the Favourite I would say these two are exactly the same staking systems; higher profit in system #2 comes from higher stakes. Namely, overround of your odds is 100% - i.e., backing at odds of 4.00 is exactly the same as laying at 1.33 (in fact, it's the same as laying at 1.3333333..., but difference is negligible), so in both cases #1 and #2, you do the same thing, but only amount of money you put on line is three times higher in case #2. When I say "amount of money you put on line", I mean the money you risk; in case #1, it's your liability, and in case #2, it's your stake; if you keep them the same for each bet, profit from both systems will be the same. So, in my opinion, that answers your question "Is there a way of choosing a unit stake that makes #1 and #2 identical?" - laying to fixed liability (not fixed stake) will make #1 and #2 identical.

#1 would have returned 3.53 units #2 would have returned 20.33 units over the games in question. However over half of #2's profit comes from a win at odds greater than 12.

Having in mind this last statement, it looks like you should not apply level stakes or liability; if it's obvious that your system shows different performance in different ranges of odds, two staking systems come to mind: 1. Maria's staking system, which puts on risk different amount of money for different range of bets; it's intended for laying, and she increases the stakes as the odds decrease: Odds below 3.5: lay to 1% of bank. Odds between 3.6 and 7.4: lay to 0.6% of bank. Odds between 7.5 and 11: lay to 0.4% of bank. This makes perfect sense for your system: you have highest profit when outsider's odds are over 12, e.g. favourite's odds below 1.09, so this staking system will advise the highest stakes in that range. You need, though, to adjust Maria's ranges of odds to suit your system - namely, you're laying the favourite, so you'll never lay at odds higher than, say, 1.80, so your staking system may look like this: Odds below 1.20: lay to 1% of bank (or any other percentage you're comfortable with). Odds between 1.21 and 1.50: lay to 0.6% of bank. Odds between 1.51 and 1.80: lay to 0.4% of bank. 2. Kelly. If you make profit in certain range of odds, that means you have found your edge there, i.e., difference between available odds and true odds is highest, so Kelly will advise the highest stakes in that range. However, to successfully apply that, you have to be better than bookmaker in evaluating chances of your selection to win (as Kelly takes into account those two numbers - chance to win predicted by you and by bookmaker). Now, after writing all this story above, let me say what I would do if I had similar system like yours, if you don't mind: I would stick with system 2, but applying stakes as fixed percentage of the bank, not fixed stake; as simple as that. That way, you risk equal percent of bank each time, and profit will take care of itself: higher the odds, higher the profit at the same level of risk, so your profit from outsiders at odds over 12 would emerge itself, and stakes would follow the bank - increase after the profit, decrease after loss, thus amortising losing streaks. The key is to decide comfortable stakes, I'd say 1% of the bank. Warn you, it's only my opinion, and I may not be objective there, as fixed percentage is my favourite staking plan nowadays, so I probably tend to see it applicable everywhere. :lol P.S. That link in your signature, it links now to home page of sports-punter, not to your personal page, I suppose because of changes when sports-punter was integrated with PL; you may want to find new link to your personal page there and replace it. :)