Dazed And Confused

Today's Results:
Horse Racing... 4.6% profit. New bank... £131.80

I confess, I'm a bit confused as to how I've wound up with a 4.6% profit for today, when I thought I had 5.8%. I've just checked my Betfair account and, sure enough, 4.6% it is.

I'd been out most of the afternoon watching my son play football. I got back in time for the 4:40 in which I managed a small profit.

I traded a further 3 races achieving a bigger profit each time - or so I thought. According to my Betfair account, my trade on 'Swan Queen' in the 4:50 at Salisbury was scratched. I thought I'd achieved just under a pound on that.

Similarly, in the next race at Newmarket, I successfully traded 'Mischief Making', yet my profit is half what I expected.

Fortunately, my trade on 'Vanadium' in the 5:25 at Salisbury was not effected. It was by far the best trade of the day, netting most of my profit for the day.

I presume the reductions in profit are due to a last minute withdrawal from the market, though the scratch on 'Swan Queen' is strange unless it was withdrawn, though I'd expect my account to say it was canceled. Having just looked at the Racing Post site, I see that it came third. So I can only assume I misread my BinarySoft BDI screen - though I'm convinced I didn't. Weird!

Anyway, despite this disappointment, I'm very please to have recovered my losses after yesterday's aberration. This leaves me a little ahead of where I was at the start of play yesterday.

Changing sport if I may...

If anyone has read my posts on the Tennis Hedging Strategy, you'll no doubt be familiar with the staking method used in such competitions. Though the idea was originally sparked by a newsletter article on tennis trading by Peter Webb of Bet Angel fame, the staking plan would work for any knockout style tournament.

Over the past week or so, I've been viewing the graphs from the various matches in the World Snooker Championship which has now reached the final. They all show the same sort of volatility throughout the match as a typical tennis game does.

Again, the main principle of laying the pre-match favourite then hedging for a 20% guaranteed profit would've worked nicely, without using any other selection criteria. This holds true for both semi-finals, the four quarter-finals and the last 16 matches (though I only managed to check on 5 of those 8 games).

Suffice to say, food for thought and worth keeping in mind for the next big snooker tournament.


Anonymous said...

Mate what happened to your bets was due to withdrawals, some will work in your favour others won't but over time it will pretty much level out.

The reason it will have reduced your profit is because you will have ended up laying off more than you needed to at the reduced odds so on some horses you would now win more than on others. The most important thing is to remember if there is a late witdrawal a reduction factor will be applied to before the off bets and not inplay bets. I once had backed a horse before the off thinking i had time to lay it back as the fav was still to load, they ended up going without the fav and i was left with my position, the odds on the horse i was trading shot in and i clicked to close the position and i had a lovely £50 profit against all runners, Then i realised my error and once the reduction was applied to my before the off back my £50 profit turned into a £50 loss! I was not happy. However, the price off the lesson (£50) now means i am aware of any late withdrawals and ensure i am out of the market well before the off so i dont suffer the same fate again!

All the best,


Alistair said...

Hi Leon,

I thought it would be withdrawals and the resulting reduction factor, though I'm at a loss to understand why a trade, completed before any suspension for a withdrawal, or the start of the race, would result in a scratch.

Of course, I'd expect the odds to be reduced by whatever factor was applicable, but this would effect both the back and the lay odds. In other words, there would still be some difference between them and so a profit would be achieved. But zero? Seems somewhat bizarre if you ask me.