LayThePsychicWay - Lay Tips & Results

About Me

Links

What do points make?

Those of you who are following my selections will have noticed that after each of my selections there is a number in brackets e.g (1.3pts) or (0.7pts). I have been asked to explain what this is, how it is used and how it is calculated.

What is it?

It represents the number of points that I allocate to each of my selections when placing a bet.

What is a point?

Experienced gamblers create a betting bank from which they fund their betting activities. It represents the sum of money that they are prepared to lose, should the worse come to the worse. A commonly-used betting bank is £1,000. But do not worry if yours is larger or smaller.

Experienced gamblers are aware that nothing is certain in this world and that losing runs can occur. Therefore, they only expose a proportion of their betting bank to each selection. That way, they are able to withstand a run of bad luck and still have a betting bank left with which to continue their activities. Commonly used exposures are 1%, 5% and 10%.

To calculate the cash-equivalent of 1 point, multiply your exposure per selection by your bank. For example, if you have a £1,000 betting bank and your exposure is 10% per selection, 1 point is equal to 10% x £1,000. Therefore, 1 point equals £100.

Therefore, if the exposure on one of my selections is 1.3pts, then 1.3 x £100 (£130) would be the exposure on this selection. Likewise, if the exposure on one of my selections is 0.7pts, then 0.7 x £100 (£70) would be the exposure on this selection.

How do I calculate how many points to allocate to each selection?

I have a large amount of statistics relating to past races from which I calculate the chances of a selection winning the race. To do this, I look at the actual performance of similar horses, in similar races, at similar courses, at similar times of the year, run on similar ground, ridden by similar jockeys and trained by similar trainers etc. The better the past perfomance, the greater are the chances that the selection will win and the bet lost. To compensate, the number of points allocated to the selection is reduced. The worse the past perfomance, the greater are the chances that the selection will lose and the bet won. To compensate, the number of points allocated to the selection is increased.

I hope that things are now a little clearer.

Psycho

2 comments

2006-Sep-28

Liability

Anonymous
Please tell me, how big ist your bank?
Often there are odds at 100, 200, 250 or more.
I ask myself if you are able andd willing to bet them with a 100-Bet (Liability 10,000 ore more).

2006-Sep-28

How big is my bank?

psycho
Hi

I do this for a living. Apart from my psychic work, I have no other means of supporting myself.

How big is my bank?

Big enough! Not because I started out with a big bank, but because of the effort that I've put in in order to get it to the size it is.

I also run a syndicate for people who haven't got the knowledge, time or inclination to devote to this art but still want to earn an extra income.

Additionally, you do not need as big a bank as you may feel that you need to lay the long-odd's nags.

What I do, if I get the chance, it to lay 'em and then back bet them when the odds increase. In other words, I arbitrage nags whenever the opportunity arises. This, generally, is not too difficult to do before the off. It can be done a little easier in-running beacuse the odds will rapidly increase when it is clear to all and sundry that the nag ain't gonna win. Using this method drastically reduces the liabilities. OK, there's the odd heart-stopping moment, but laying the shorter priced nags causes this phenomenon far more frequently.

OK. That's that dealt with - I hope.

Now let's move on.

Let's ask the question - is it more profitable to lay the longer-priced nags than the shorter-priced ones? I ask this because, even though you don't state it, this is the question that you are asking. Or am I wrong?

OK.

The perception is that it is more profitable to lay the shorter-priced nags than the longer ones. Why? Because the perception is that longer-priced nags on exchanges such as Betfair differ from SP by margin which grows exponentially as the SP increases. Therefore, the smaller the SP, the closer is the Betfair price to SP. As such, longer-priced nags don't represent 'good value'.

The other reason why people prefer to stay away from the longer-priced nags is that when they win, you can get creamed. Well, that's down to personal choice - to get slightly creamed often - as a result of laying the short-priced nags or to get totally creamed but far less frequently - as a result of laying the longer-priced nags.

Well, those are the perceptions - and you are very welcome to 'em good sir.

Now here's the facts, my friend:

Have a look at my postings on my blog. Have a look at the losing bets (winning horses). Notice anything? Yes, the nags that win are the shorter-priced ones!!! Now there's a surprise.

Now go onto any web site that give's out free tips. There are lots to choose from. On those site, there are lots of laying systems. Select one at random - it doesn't matter which one as long as it has at least a 3 month history and as long as it can be verified that the tips were posted before the off. (Some post after the event - such cheek).

OK.

Now decide on an odds cut-off point. Let's say 10/1? If you don't like 10/1, select another one. It really doesn't matter where the odds cut-off point is.

If the odds of the selected nag is above the cut-off point - it's a no bet. Now, using the odds cut-off point, calculate a P/L for at least the last 3 months. Now calculate another P/L for the same time period without the odds cut off point. Now compare the two P/L's. Now select a different system on a different web site and do the same again etc. I've done this lots of times and have found the same thing time after time. The greater P/L is the one that doesn't employ an odds cut-off point. In other words, contrary to perception, there is greater value in the longer-priced nags than in the shorter ones.

I once came across a layer called Mr Mindyerbeak who was very successful. He wouldn't touch the short-priced nags with a barge pole. And he didn't do badly at all.

I also came across a guy called Terry19 who had a laying system called 'the so simple system'. He was an exceptionally nice fella. For a time it was successful. He had an odds cut-off of 5.9. In the end, he had to suspend it because of the losses that it was incurring.

What's been happening for years is that the bookies have been under-valueing odds. A horse that they offer at say 100/1 really should be offered at about 150-200/1. In the past, they have been able to get away with it due to a lack of competition. Betfair has now provided a playing field which is a little more level.

So, reality v's perception. You choose and good luck.

Psycho

Previous 766 of 804 Next