Adovcating almost NEVER to lay to hedge

[Jezza]

I'm of the opinion this should (almost) never be done, controversial I know!!! However, when we back a bet we are always looking for value, that is the chances of it happening are more than the odds imply. The reverse therefore must also be true when we lay....we are giving odds that have to be less than the chance of the event happening. This is a LOT harder to acheive on an exchange than the backing part (unless you are subject to inside info like a trainer or something). When you have backed a longish shot, and it is looking good so the odds drop it is very tempting to lay it off and guarantee yourself some profit. However in the long run you have probably shot yourself in the foot and if you had a 2% adv before you probably now only have a 0.5% or similar. Yes it is gutting when the long shot doesnt come in and you could have had some small profit however in the long run you will make more by consitently just letting the value ride, if you can pick well from the start. If you hedge....you will have small consistent bank growth long term with smallish swings short term If you dont...you will have bigger bankroll growth in the long run albeit with big swings either way short term All assuming we can pick value picks tho!!!! :rollin Comments? Jez

[Guest OddsAgainst]

Re: Adovcating almost NEVER to lay to hedge Yes, I agree with you. But if value is to be had in closing the bet then surely that should be taken. In other words if you have backed a team at a value price and during the game you can lay them at a price that is IYO shorter than fair odds then that should be taken. Bets should not be closed for the sake of it though, just because "guaranteed profit" can be taken.

[Guest cjamars]

Re: Adovcating almost NEVER to lay to hedge I disagree with this view. If I am in a position to GUARUNTEE a profit I will always hedge out on the other result. Just yesterday in my tennis thread I had three trebles running on the final anchor (a “banker†1/) 7. If it won I had a 100 unit profit on my 60 unit stake. I hedged an additional 20 units on the 4/1 other result to guarantee 20 units back even though I knew the chances of an upset were remote. I have never done an analysis of my hedged bets but the few times I have broken this self imposed rue I have been badly burned in the worst possible way because of one of the worst traits in gambling – GREED. I only hedge where there is two options for the hedge (i.e not in W-D-L situations in football). EDIT : Reread this thread and see it might be more directed at Betfair and tradeing in running. My comments are more re fixed odds. From the book "Spread Betting" (Jacques Black) I remember he did an analysis (I cannot remember :lol ) of why generally it was very poor value to close out of bets except in exceptional circumstances. Maybe someone else could fill in if they have read the book?

[Guest OddsAgainst]

Re: Adovcating almost NEVER to lay to hedge Not a spread expert but I think when you close a spread bet you are getting hit by the spread twice but only once if you let it run. Similarly in fixed odds if you make a poor value bet and close it with another poor value bet then you get hit by the overround twice. You will therefore in the long term make less profit.

[Jezza]

Re: Adovcating almost NEVER to lay to hedge Odds, I agree with you completely this why I said almost never. If you can find the "reverse" value in the lay and the odds that you will give someone then by all means snap their arm/wallet off cjmar......I'm not really greedy I just think mathematically it works out better in the long run never to hedge Jez

[Guest madmick]

Re: Adovcating almost NEVER to lay to hedge I agree with most of what has been said - the only mitigating factors in 'closing out' a bet might be to free up liquidity (e.g. in a betting exchange), or to minimise large fluctuations in bank balance.

[Guest Weststander]

Re: Adovcating almost NEVER to lay to hedge The only reason to close a spread bet is if the available price represents value.It's mathematically indisputable. It's easiest to demonstrate if you're trying to restrict your losses. Say you've sold total goals at 3 & in the 80th min there's already been 4.Ignoring any special circumstances like dismissals there's just under 0.6 of a goal left in the game. On average per 100 such games,56 will have no more goals,33 will have exactly one more,9 will have 2 more & 2 will have 3 more. Trying to reduce your losses by buying at 4.3(good value),4.6(no edge) or 4.9(poor value),compared to allowing the bet to run leaves you respectively better off,makes no difference or worse off in the long run. It's the same with guaranteeing profits,not withstanding the instant profit you make on the day,trading at poor value prices to do so will cost you in the long run. No reason to suppose it's any different with fixed odds. Most people find it difficult to objectively price say a soccer match in running,so there's often lumps of value,especially immediately following a price dislocation that follows a goal. W.