Each way betting

[harrisman]

Re: Each way betting actually if you pick the right races even with non runners on the exchanges they still pay 2 places even if there is 1NR in a 5 runner race. Some events if you do your stats correctly although you may only get 1.3-1.4 maybe for the place it has a much more likely profit to me than doing a standard e/w bet at 7/2 maybe in a 5 runner race

[Snoopdog]

Re: Each way betting

Ive recently strted doing ew doubles at prices of around 5/2. If both are placed you make a tiny profit but if they both win a nice profit is made. Its working out quiet nicely so far and I would recommend it.

I mentioned in another thread that my father who was a shop bookie from the early 60s told me some of his most successful slip customers were backing un-named 2nd favs. The selections were often put into doubles, each-way doubles and stakes across bets. He used to calculate the slips around 8pm in the dining room, then occasionaly marching into the living room appalled to show mum a slip of someone getting a big return from a negligible outlay using a strategy like this.

[fintron]

Re: Each way betting Im an each-way punter too. At various times I have tried to do away with it as every time Ive backtested results, I'd make more profit backing win only. But backing win only can lead to long losing runs, you question your methods and can be prone to backing the 'wrong' types. I suppose backing savers or multiple selections in a race is one way around it but its defo a psychological blanket. I'd go down to 5/2 if they were paying 1/4 odds EW or down to 7/2 if paying 1/5 of the odds. If someone else was picking selections for me or I had a system to take away any emotional involvement, I'd go win only.

[mowgli77]

Re: Each way betting I think it often depends on the race and whether you have a strong opinion on one horse or whether you've only managed to get the race down to 2-3 selections and choose to back a few win only rather than one each way. There is always the option of no bet and I wonder how confident people can be if they are backing each way at odds of around 3-1, knowing a place is just loss minimisation to cover most of the stake rather than to boost profits. Each way betting at low odds can be a good tactic in small fields when opposing a weak looking favourite as you are unlikely to get huge odds in an 8 runner race but dependant on confidence it may make more sense for an 80-20 or 70-30 place/win split. I had a day at Donny when I had horses placed at 12-1, 16-1 etc in 5 races but backed all win only and left the course skint. Each way bets would have at least given a return.

[erhaab1965]

Re: Each way betting How many punters on here put on EW bets on long priced horses and in their minds conceeding that they are only playing for place money ? This extends to those who engage in the EW Lucky 15 thread , when putting together 4 long shots , are we forfieting half the stake right from the start? I do , do them from time to time, but I do think its a big leak in punters bankrolls when they put these bets on. If I do a 9/2 shot each way , I am hopeful or relatively confident of a win and very confident of a place return at the very least. But when I do a 25/1 shot EW , in my mind I'm forfieting the win part and just hopeful of the place part. To be honest , I dont often do big prices EW , I prefer win only. In the Grand National I often have 5 to 8 horses running for me win only. ( I haven't had a return in that race since Papillion year 2000 !! but thats besides the point ) Is the win part of the EW bet on long shots a waste of stake ? Take last weeks golf open , the EW way terms were very generous ( compared to normal ) with some paying 8 places , when selecting a 66/1 0r 200/1 shot EW , are we chucking good money away ? The win part of the 66/1 shot will only come in once ,in every 66 tournaments theoretically speaking.

[erhaab1965]

Re: Each way betting I'm sure BillyHills will agree that EW lucky 15s comprised of all long shots is a bookies dream , and I do them on occasions , and if we analyse the Lucky 15 thread I'm sure the win part of those bets are massively down. I'm not having a go or trying to rubbish those who participate. Just trying to ascertain whether punters are automatically giving up on the win part when they put these bets on. If some are , would it be better to put the entire stake on a place only lucky15 ,over a longer period of time wouldn't it be more profitable ? Probably once a year one of the big bookies release a statement that one lucky punter has got 6 winners from 8 on his Super Heinz at 5p stakes and returned a quarter of a million , this in turn gets more punters into doing these types of bets. We all know that Frankie got 7 out of 7 at Ascot a few years back and there were cries from bookies saying they've lost millions from small stake accumulator bets , lucky 15s , yankees etc. In the time since how much and more have they recouped from punters doing an all Frankie accumulator bet , Its been 16 years , has he had even a 4 timer in that time?

[The Saint]

Re: Each way betting With most of the horses I back, I don't think they are the most likely winner in the race because I'm picking what I consider to be overpriced horses as opposed to the most likely winner. That having been said, I'll only back anything that I consider to be within 7lbs of the most likely winner. There is no set of long term profitbale results that will show as good a return betting EW than win only but it's about the phychological blanket that EW provides and maintaining confidence as opposed to maximising profit. It's well proven I don't handle losing runs well - this can lead to not backing the 33/1 shot that shoots your bank through the roof or doubting your own methods and ability. It makes no Mathematical sense if banks are unlimited and the money means nothing to you and therefore has no phychological effect on you. Betting £2 at a time for example, it would be alot easier to go 'win only' all the time than if you are faced with £100 EW or £200 win. Hope that makes some sort of sense!! I'm doubtful :(

[Kithanga]

I disagree Saint that win only is always better. Ew is always better in 16 runner plus hcp for example. Assume you get 20's and all have true 15-1 chance. Win only return to £2 win is £42. Ew return £1ew is £45 Sent from my GT-I9300 using PL Forum

[The Saint]

Re: Each way betting I may have been unclear... What I mean is that ANY winning/profitable set of results will be better off as WIN only as opposed to EW. I mean obv not if a punter hits 100 2nd places in a row but that isn't likely. Don't get me wrong - I DO back EW because I am phychologically too weak to back Win Only. Through Royal Ascot I was a pittence up because I backed EW. I'd have been miles down win only but long term over a season I'm confident win only will pay more - just not convinced it's best for me!! In your example above - I must be misunderstanding.... £2 win at 20s is £42 - agreed. £1 EW is £27 isn't it? U may have a set of results coming in given the selections 'true chance' but I'm not at liberty to say! ;)

[erhaab1965]

Re: Each way betting

I disagree Saint that win only is always better. Ew is always better in 16 runner plus hcp for example. Assume you get 20's and all have true 15-1 chance. Win only return to £2 win is £42. Ew return £1ew is £45 Sent from my GT-I9300 using PL Forum

Your 2 sentences contain plenty of material for a lengthy debate. Everything boils down to you as a punter/person. It depends on your strike rate , so for some it could be win only which is better , for some EW. As for EW is better for 16+ runner fields. Me I'm not too sure. The place terms for a 16 runner h'cap is the same for a 40 runner h'cap. Is it prudent to go EW when there are 30 -40 runners ? As for a horse's true chance or true odds , again that all down to opinion. If you rate a horse a 2/1 chance but 4/1 is available and still drifting , do you wade in? Do you go large ? I'm sure many of us have done our bolllocks in on a horse which is seemingly overpriced . Everything becomes more clear once they cross the line. Yesterday I relapsed and spent a full day in the bookies. I fancied Ikhtisas at Doncaster which was 11/4 early price. Was going to do a bog standard 1pt win , but when it opened up it was 4/1. So I bet 2pts EW , 4 times my originally intended stake. A couple of minutes later it carried on drifting to an eventual SP of 6/1. It won , but had I knew before the off it was going to be 6/1 I wouldn't have backed it. Crossing the line you could argue it was the best horse but the odds didn't relect it. How do punters determine a horse's true chance before the off when the odds drift or contract violently. Not too sure what you mean exactly with your EW examples , probably a typo.

[Kithanga]

Assumed 1 in each pos over 16 runs given they all had equal chance. Therefore 1 win & 4 places (1 win, 1 2nd, etc) and 12 losers (5th to 16th). In theory the volatility you speak of works to the advantage of the punter. On my personal thread I referred to the same race last night. I had the front three all at 4-1 (4-6) and all at one stage were 6-1. I only backed one (loser) but could have done all three at 11-8. I do this sometimes but only when very confident on my prices. Back to ew. Each to their own I say as its whatever suits you best sometimes that's more important than the pure maths. I agree with saint that keeping confidence can be more important than the math Sent from my GT-I9300 using PL Forum

[The Saint]

Re: Each way betting Thanks K - that makes perfect sense now. Your above is intersting - concerning the 6/1 shots. My personal approach in this situation would be to back all 3 of them (EW too!!) for my full stake. I think most seem to split their stake for the race amongst the 2 or 3 selections they fancy or consider value. I don't do this becasue I'd almost feel robbed when one does go in. You are, of course, more likely to back the winner of any given race if you back 2 of the field or 3 of the field as opposed to one so I try and play up this advantage. If your prices are right and you're getting enough of what you consider 'value' then I don't feel the stake should be split to take away some of your percieved advantage. The issue I AM having at the moment is what time of day to place the bet and/or consider which selection is value. Today in the 345 I was considering 2 but despite the prices I wanted being available all day, it wasn't in the last 10 minutes of betting on the exchnages when I have to bet at the moment. Mathematically/long term I should leave it but when they do go in they sting like a b****!! Oh - the one that I left was given a crap ride by Mr Hughes so it tuened out ok but obviously one doesn't remember those as much as the ones that were left!!! Records show the ones where value is gone are still showing a profit. Power of the market I guess...

[Kithanga]

Yes, understand. Don't want to hijack the EW thread but ..... re backing more than one rather than EW I'm finding that's working better for me now and the staking I have avoids some of problem in your last post. I currently narrow down to those I'm willing to back, price entire race and back one or more if above by 20%+. Usually one. Usually my first or second fav. I stake to odds % with occasionally little more when price is way out. It's working well for me at the moment. Theory being that as long as I'm sticking with those with good chance and consistent on stake and safety margin and reasonably acurrate with my odds I should come out ahead. Only been trying it for a month or so though. Time will tell but promising so far as lower stake going on chancier types but have freedom to increase or back two or three if needed. Odds fluctuations help as in theory if I fancied all field and they all hit my value price at some point im winning Sent from my GT-I9300 using PL Forum

[The Saint]

Yes, understand. Don't want to hijack the EW thread but ..... re backing more than one rather than EW I'm finding that's working better for me now and the staking I have avoids some of problem in your last post. I currently narrow down to those I'm willing to back, price entire race and back one or more if above by 20%+. Usually one. Usually my first or second fav. I stake to odds % with occasionally little more when price is way out. It's working well for me at the moment. Theory being that as long as I'm sticking with those with good chance and consistent on stake and safety margin and reasonably acurrate with my odds I should come out ahead. Only been trying it for a month or so though. Time will tell but promising so far as lower stake going on chancier types but have freedom to increase or back two or three if needed. Odds fluctuations help as in theory if I fancied all field and they all hit my value price at some point im winning Sent from my GT-I9300 using PL Forum

Yep - similar approach - just differing a little on staking. Out of interest, I guess you are treating the 20% on top of your tissue as in the 4/1 shot, you'd be looking to secure 4.8/1 I use 5% but that's 5% of the book. So if I make a horse 4/1(20%), I'll want to achieve just over 11/2(6.7 exchange odds I think - which is around 15%). I often think I'm too tight and have no idea which method would work best. As long as they both do!! Back to EW - apologies for hijack!

[Kithanga]

Re: Each way betting Based on that example, I think you're being tighter than me Saint, yes. Couple of examples, for 4-1 I take the odds percentage 20% and multiply it by 0.82875 giving 16.58% and then divide into 100 to get the decimal odds which gives 6.03 or 5-1. So, for 9-1 that's be 10% * 0.82875 giving 8.29% and then divide into 100 to get 12.07 or approximately 11-1. 5 runners at true odds of 4-1, 1 winner at 5-1 = 6.00 return for 5.00 stake, profit of 1.0 (roi 20%) 10 runners at true odds of 9-1, 1 winner at 11-1 = 12.00 return for 10.00 for profit of 2.0 (roi 20%) Yes?

[Kithanga]

Re: Each way betting p.s the 20% is minimum, if it were a 15 runner maiden with a lot of newcomers I might go 30%, 35%, etc given the uncertainty. The other consideration is that if I like the shape of the race and think two really stand out and I'm confident I'd back both if even marginally above my price. If it's a proper tricky race and I've got doubts I mostly only back one (two or more only if they're way over priced) as I don't want to reduce my overall odds percentage in a race where I'm not sure I'm right

[The Saint]

p.s the 20% is minimum' date=' if it were a 15 runner maiden with a lot of newcomers I might go 30%, 35%, etc given the uncertainty. The other consideration is that if I like the shape of the race and think two really stand out and I'm confident I'd back both if even marginally above my price. If it's a proper tricky race and I've got doubts I mostly only back one (two or more only if they're way over priced) as I don't want to reduce my overall odds percentage in a race where I'm not sure I'm right[/quote'] Yep - got it. I like that you maintain a level of flexibility - having said that, the only Maidens you'll find me involved in are ones with markets that go something like 1/3, 4/1, 8/1, 25/1 bar with 8 or 9 runners! They're few and far between nowadays :( - Flexibility is something I don't have due to trying to take any subjectivity out of the game. Probably doesn't help in some aspects but again, emotionally, it keeps me on the right path. I'm largely a robot nowadays! :)

[Kithanga]

Yeh, its rare tbh that one crops up in maiden races but I like to do one meeting to give some focus. Saves me bouncing round the cards for an hour trying to decide which races to play Sent from my GT-I9300 using PL Forum