Announcements
*** New Last Man Standing Competition - Win up to £1500 Annually - See Competitions Forum ***
Rolemat

Myth And Fallacy of EW Betting

Recommended Posts

At the behest of a poster on the £20 daily challenge I hope the majority will understand the logic and hard fact I have been trying to get through on that thread.Simply that an ew is two separate bets and should be treated as such.That punters are guaranteeing a loss on the place part if the odds are less than 4/1 @ 1/4 and 5/1 @ 1/5,it is a mathematical certainty and no other outcome is possible.

They have argued that the place minimises loss which of course it does not unless the odds are higher than above,to keep it to the most common odds 9/2 for 1/4 which gives .12p per £1 invested in the place and .10p per £1 for 11/2 and 1/5.

This must seem obvious to most punters but it seems to escape some that even if a horse wins they will lose on the place part of the bet unless the odds are higher than I stated in the first sentence.To actually minimise loss as they state the odds have to be exactly 4/1 or 5/1 at 1/4 or 1/5 which simply breaks even.It has been argued that an average SP of 6/4 will give a profit on the place part over a period of time which of course is impossible.

I do advocate ew betting but there has to be very sound reasoning and the price has to be at least break even if a bet fails to win otherwise it is pointless,you are simply giving the bookies your money by doing otherwise before the horse has even run.Long term much better to double the stake of the win part if betting on short priced horses or sticking to the win half and keeping the place half in your pocket.The only alternative is to work out a percentage to return a profit whether your horse places or wins e.g 80% on the place 20% on the win.

Hope I haven't insulted your intelligence or seem to be teaching you to suck eggs but there does seem to be an alarming misunderstanding of EW lining the pockets of the bookies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have made £2,400 since June simply betting short priced horses each way and Roger has made lots more by using a similar strategy. Perhaps you are correct and we have just been very lucky !

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

Well I have made £2,400 since June simply betting short priced horses each way and Roger has made lots more by using a similar strategy. Perhaps you are correct and we have just been very lucky !

 

 

 

If that is the case then it's the win part of the bet that's profitable. You would have made more putting the place part of the bet to win instead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That punters are guaranteeing a loss on the place part if the odds are less than 4/1 @ 1/4 and 5/1 @ 1/5,it is a mathematical certainty and no other outcome is possible."

Surely you're still winning on the e/w part of the bet? (as you get your e/w stake back plus the e/w winnings) It's just not covering the full win stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is arguing that 4/ 1 & 5/1 are the break even prices,  that's not the point . As I said you are looking at it in a conventional way and not in the context of short odds ew. 

Example ; keep to whole numbers for ease and simplicity. 

20 win on 5/2 = 70 return less stake = 50 profit . 

10 ew on 5/2 = 35 return on the win part and 15 on the place part = 50 less stake = 30 profit . 

Ok. Let's take 10 races all 5/2 all finish 2nd

You . £20 win , all lost so - £ 200 

Me. £10 ew , all place so I lose £100 on the win but just £50 on the place part .therefore overall I lose £150 

Straight away I've lost less 

(My place returns £15 but my stake is £20 so just -£5 on the bet )

Now take the same 10 races but this time 3 win 7 are 2nd 

You lose 7×20 = 140 

You win 3×50 = 150 

You have made a profit of 10 well done 

I lose 7× 5 = 35 ( see above ,remember I only lose 5 on the bet ) 

I win 3 ×30 = 90 less 35 = 55 

Wow I seem to have made  more than you on a bet I cant possibly win with . 

Minimum loss to maximum profit .

If I dont win i get 3/4 of my money back . You keep saying I lose in the place part , that is wrong you forget I get the stake back as well as the profit .

Minimum loss - 5 ( if placed )

Maximum profit 30 ( if wins ) 

Therefore I have turned my 5/2 into a 6/1 

I only do the flat . Race selection and odds makeup determines a bet . 

 

 

Edited by roger2256
Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pirate53 said:

If that is the case then it's the win part of the bet that's profitable. You would have made more putting the place part of the bet to win instead.

 

I am not sure how you work that out without having knowledge of my individual bets. I can assure you if I had backed them all to win I would have lost money.

As an example I have extracted those bets that were at 3/1.

There were 25 bets of which 6 won, therefore I would have made a loss at level stakes.

12 were placed and 7 lost.

Therefore my returns were 6*1.8 + 12*-0.2 + 7*-1.0 = 1.40 (5% ROI).

Of the 12 that were placed 2 were placed 4th. So without the benefit of the bookies extra place I would have lost a further 1.8 points and made an overall loss.

Based on Roger's comments I am going to have a look in more detail at this as I think there could well be further profits to be made. So this thread could well prove very beneficial to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys

The problem we have here is due to the term EW you are looking at the bet as if it is Mutually Exclusive ( P ( Win and PLACE ) = 0 )

image.png.e1453763b2019958bbf16762696477d3.png    P ( WIN and PLACE ) = 0  or  P( win and place ) = P(win) + P(place)

This is incorrect as the bet is actually NOT Mutually Exclusive it is infact

image.png.5a8232dab1ee74f157fb67fed6d10967.png

Although the win part guarantees a place the inverse does not guarantee a win.

So the place part of the bet should be looked at as a separate event.

Therefore you can make money Backing the win part (event 1) if your estimation is better than the books perceived estimation

You can also be profitable on the place part (event 2) again if your estimation is better than the books perceived estimation

It is the treating of the bet as Mutually Exclusive that is where the problem is arising.

When the buzzer goes please leave the room in an orderly manner and NO running in the corridors ;) :lol

 

Edited by Valiant Thor
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

Therefore you can make money Backing the win part (event 1) if your estimation is better than the books perceived estimation

You can also be profitable on the place part (event 2) again if your estimation is better than the books perceived estimation

I think its too easy to say that, on that theory anything is worth doing as long as your estimation is better than ......................

So as a method of making money is it a good idea to back a 5/2 shot EW or not?? I think that is what the argument is.

All i know is that when i was in the industry we had some shrewdies that were marked for backing such bets, a £200 EW bet on second favourites that were over 2/1 and under 4/1 was their thing (3 places). I'm not against the idea ......as long as we are good tipsters eh!!

:ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I used to be in a tipping service, they used to give out e-w bets from 5-2 up till 6-1 and was usually maiden races.The theory was it was 95 per cent to finish in the first 3 places (that was his words) so hence £200 ew at say the minimum 5-2 you would lose £100 at the worst if it came 2nd or 3rd.Yes you put more money on rather than just £200 on  the nose but you would just lose £100.These bets would be 1-4 a week roughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillyHills said:

I think its too easy to say that, on that theory anything is worth doing as long as your estimation is better than ......................

 

Why?

That 'theory' made Bill Bentner a multimillionaire so who's to argue.

How else would you make money if your estimation or EV as some prefer say is not better than the books estimation?

Magic?- Runes?- Voodoo?- Chicken Bones?-Tea Leaves?

After reading some of the comments in the racing section I think the latter are some punters preferred methods.

1 hour ago, BillyHills said:

So as a method of making money is it a good idea to back a 5/2 shot EW or not?? I think that is what the argument is.

If your bets are winning more than 28.5% and placing more than 66.6% (1/5 odds) of the time yes if not no for the reasons I have stated the 2 events are not Mutually Exclusive.

For Rolemat to state his 'simple maths' disprove the point leaves a lot to be desired and I don't think Blaise Pascal would have much to worry about be he alive today.

ATB

VT :ok

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say "If" Valiant but there are no ifs or buts in basic facts,backing 5/2 shots ew will always produce a loss if the horse only places and that is without counting those which do not place.Seems to be confusion (no idea why) as to what constitutes a loss on an ew,it is no different to any other bet in that if you get back less than the total stake it is a LOSS.

i.e £10 ew @ 5/2 =£20 out,a place at 1/5 gives a return of £15 and = £5 loss and applies to every bet under the break even price so it is not minimising loss it is guaranteeing it contrary to some opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rolemat said:

You say "If" Valiant but there are no ifs or buts in basic facts,backing 5/2 shots ew will always produce a loss if the horse only places and that is without counting those which do not place.Seems to be confusion (no idea why) as to what constitutes a loss on an ew,it is no different to any other bet in that if you get back less than the total stake it is a LOSS.

i.e £10 ew @ 5/2 =£20 out,a place at 1/5 gives a return of £15 and = £5 loss and applies to every bet under the break even price so it is not minimising loss it is guaranteeing it contrary to some opinions.

Shame you cant understand what Mutually Exclusive means

If you perceive in your own mind that you are correct Then I suggest you scripting your EW theorum to the IMA and get Pascals theorem debunked

As it seems to have been around over 300yrs and might need a little 'freshening up' with your idea.

PS

I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply from them

ATB

VT :ok

 

 

 

Edited by Valiant Thor
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have changed tack a little after stating the place part of the bet will always lose if the odds are less than 4 or 5/1 . Whereas you have just said it returns 15  , a  5 profit on the place side . 

You are stating now a loss on the whole bet which is absolutely correct,  no one is arguing that point , it is however only 5 and not 20 therefore minimizing the loss until the win is achieved.  

I have 6 placed and a win @5/2   = break even

You have 6 losers and a win @ 5/2  = -70 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt seem that complicated to me ...If your betting below the threshold 9/2 ..11/2 etc then all your doing is limiting losses unless the horse wins ....so that ew part  bet in essence never has a chance to return a profit even before the race is run whereas a bet over the threshold always does and therefore gives you 2 rolls of the dice every time.......as a loss limiter it has it's merits but then it comes down to how often your horses win and place long term as a couple of non places and you can quickly find yourself in the red 

Edited by richard-westwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

Shame you cant understand what Mutually Exclusive means

If you perceive in your own mind that you are correct Then I suggest you scripting your EW theorum to the IMA and get Pascals theorem debunked

As it seems to have been around over 300yrs and might need a little 'freshening up' with your idea.

PS

I wouldn't hold my breath for a reply from them

ATB

VT :ok

 

 

 

Simple arithmetic Valiant which no matter how anyone twists or turns it keeps producing the same result and always will,if I am wrong please feel free to point out where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, richard-westwood said:

Doesnt seem that complicated to me ...If your betting below the threshold 9/2 ..11/2 etc then all your doing is limiting losses unless the horse wins ....so that ew part  bet in essence never has a chance to return a profit even before the race is run whereas a bet over the threshold always does and therefore gives you 2 rolls of the dice every time.......as a loss limiter it has it's merits but then it comes down to how often your horses win and place long term as a couple of non places and you can quickly find yourself in the red 

How are you "Limiting losses" rather than guaranteeing a loss Richard? Win and place as you allude to does not alter hard facts,the place under the break even threshold guarantees a loss EVERY time so a pointless bet? I would like to see how  the others can dispute this with an example for the benefit of us maybe missing a valuable point? You have hit the nail firmly on the head and the question is for others to disprove what we can obviously fathom,not for you to answer the question,you already have in a simple to understand way and glad I am not going mad.Could hardly have put it better myself although have tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, roger2256 said:

You seem to have changed tack a little after stating the place part of the bet will always lose if the odds are less than 4 or 5/1 . Whereas you have just said it returns 15  , a  5 profit on the place side . 

You are stating now a loss on the whole bet which is absolutely correct,  no one is arguing that point , it is however only 5 and not 20 therefore minimizing the loss until the win is achieved.  

I have 6 placed and a win @5/2   = break even

You have 6 losers and a win @ 5/2  = -70 

You should learn basic arithmetic and perhaps to read,I said a £5 loss on the place which has to be taken into account of the total stake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 12:08 AM, MCLARKE said:

Well I have made £2,400 since June simply betting short priced horses each way and Roger has made lots more by using a similar strategy. Perhaps you are correct and we have just been very lucky !

 

 

 

Looking back on the thread and the Daily Challenge mate,I can only say look at your betting history and your P&L on both parts of your ew bets under the break even threshold.Not your total profit or returns on your bets or net profits.You will find that your place bets under the threshold have lost every time and only your win bets have generated a profit?

Then consider this,you stated if you backed them win only you would have lost? Then consider had you just backed them to win and forgot about an equal place bet i.e EW how much more profit does that show without doubling the win part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even after the examples you still refuse to the accept the concept.  Billy has told you he knew successful punters who did the same , Clark's success since June is there to see in front of you .

Any serious punter looks , listens and considers all aspects and angles to make a profit .

I bow to your superior intellect,  I'll consider it in April when I start on my 12th year of 'losing' , my 9th since retirement at 55 lol .  

Edited by roger2256
Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give examples then Roger,it is simple to show P @ L? Whether perceived or assumed,assured my examples are 100% fool proof?

 

Backing place losers will always produce loss?

Or maybe not?

Edited by Rolemat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rolemat said:

Simple arithmetic Valiant which no matter how anyone twists or turns it keeps producing the same result and always will,if I am wrong please feel free to point out where?

Your not arguing with me , you are arguing against the polymaths who have been the stalwarts of math for well over 300 years .

Maybe your the second coming or the greatest thing since sliced bread or maybe the mechanics of ME are just above your simple arithmetic, I care not

ATB

VT

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

Your not arguing with me , you are arguing against the polymaths who have been the stalwarts of math for well over 300 years .

Maybe your the second coming or the greatest thing since sliced bread or maybe the mechanics of ME are just above your simple arithmetic, I care not

ATB

VT

 

Not even Maths,simple arithmetic and feel free to discredit that Valiant? Or did you invent the wheel as you seem so intelligent? Perhaps helping fellow punters is not in your own remit? I await with bated breath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.