Laying extremely exotic longshot horses - is it a good strategy or not?
I think I should have written a blog about this, in 2018 I've already started this thread:
But ever since I got burned there I stopped betting on SA races (SA = South Africa) and I also stopped it with Singapore when "King of Thieves" 300 to 1 - won the race and had cost me a lot ... since then it's only AU & UK races for me, with NZ & IE as well.
So let's move fwd. When you search the Internet for "Strategy for laying horses" you mainly come across websites that have a sales pitch or some people discussing strategies of laying horses with even odds, or at most 20-50 SP price. (SP price is the price that got fixed for a specific horse before the race has started).
I'm not talking about this, and I didn't talk about it back then in 2018 (at least not most of the times, unless you see an opportunity e.g. Greyhound races in New Zealand - the trainer John McInerney has so many dogs, he's literally responsible sometimes for more than 50% of the dogs who race there so if you see a 30 to 1 dog from this guy with poor form and other interesting info then you can "safely" lay this one).
But let's talk about what I discussed so many years ago which is still relevant nowadays:
Let's say you have a horse that is 150 to 1, or 200 to 1 or even a 80 to 1 horse that goes 400 to 1 in live betting - how "safe" is it to bet against that horse to win the race?
Or the same can be said about greyhound races, for instance at this time of writing I'm picking this race in Murray Bridge:
Dog #5 looks like a great underdog to lay (lay = bet against that dog that he won't win the race).
So in the betting exchange you need to risk around 240 to 1 against this dog:
But still - money is money, isn't it?
Say you risk $6000 to win $25 - your odds are effectively 1.0042 which are quite extremely low odds but if you believe the market indicates the dog is a loser - so is this a good bet or not? (compare it with risking $100 to win $25 with odds of 1.25 - which is a riskier approach to grab $25?)
There are some 100-150 to 1 horses that in the exchange get 80-160 and some 80 to 1 horses that in the exchange get 400 to 1.
I'm talking about these 400 to 1 ... and yes, I am fully aware of stories like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...n-horse-racing
Unfortunately along the way there is a risk you might lay one of these horses which strike a huge surprise - however you can go months or even years without striking something like this and based on my calculation if you take a $6000 bank, making $100/day (you can easily grab much more) then within 2 months you can return your "investment" - is it risky? of course it is!
However, I'm just giving some food for thoughts here.
I'd be happy to hear what you think about all this?
But ever since I got burned there I stopped betting on SA races (SA = South Africa) and I also stopped it with Singapore when "King of Thieves" 300 to 1 - won the race and had cost me a lot ... since then it's only AU & UK races for me, with NZ & IE as well.
So let's move fwd. When you search the Internet for "Strategy for laying horses" you mainly come across websites that have a sales pitch or some people discussing strategies of laying horses with even odds, or at most 20-50 SP price. (SP price is the price that got fixed for a specific horse before the race has started).
I'm not talking about this, and I didn't talk about it back then in 2018 (at least not most of the times, unless you see an opportunity e.g. Greyhound races in New Zealand - the trainer John McInerney has so many dogs, he's literally responsible sometimes for more than 50% of the dogs who race there so if you see a 30 to 1 dog from this guy with poor form and other interesting info then you can "safely" lay this one).
But let's talk about what I discussed so many years ago which is still relevant nowadays:
Let's say you have a horse that is 150 to 1, or 200 to 1 or even a 80 to 1 horse that goes 400 to 1 in live betting - how "safe" is it to bet against that horse to win the race?
Or the same can be said about greyhound races, for instance at this time of writing I'm picking this race in Murray Bridge:
Dog #5 looks like a great underdog to lay (lay = bet against that dog that he won't win the race).
So in the betting exchange you need to risk around 240 to 1 against this dog:
But still - money is money, isn't it?
Say you risk $6000 to win $25 - your odds are effectively 1.0042 which are quite extremely low odds but if you believe the market indicates the dog is a loser - so is this a good bet or not? (compare it with risking $100 to win $25 with odds of 1.25 - which is a riskier approach to grab $25?)
There are some 100-150 to 1 horses that in the exchange get 80-160 and some 80 to 1 horses that in the exchange get 400 to 1.
I'm talking about these 400 to 1 ... and yes, I am fully aware of stories like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...n-horse-racing
Unfortunately along the way there is a risk you might lay one of these horses which strike a huge surprise - however you can go months or even years without striking something like this and based on my calculation if you take a $6000 bank, making $100/day (you can easily grab much more) then within 2 months you can return your "investment" - is it risky? of course it is!
However, I'm just giving some food for thoughts here.
I'd be happy to hear what you think about all this?
) The value there is on the backers side. Now on the opposite end where you find value is on a 2.5 shot who should be 5.0 Bettors migrate to favorites and then you add like a Dettori to the mix and you get a bonus on the lay side. Man I can just imagine the sick feeling watching the live odds on that 500-1 lay go down down and then hit the 3 the 2 the 1.5 the 1.01 and that feeling you must of felt. Sick.
