An apology...

Eddie over at A Football Trader's Path took me to task over what he calls a 'throwaway statement' - his concerns being summed up thus:

Hmm, is that last part really true, I said to myself. Do more games that are 3-0 at half-time end-up with the winning team still on three goals? Well, this immediately stuck in my brain, and I just had to check out the veracity, or otherwise, of this casually lobbed-in sentence. 

Of course he then proceeds to do what I obviously hadn't done, i.e. a little bit of digging into the stats. He only looked at the Premier League but it is apparent that my statement was a little..... debateable at best! He makes reference deeper into his post about this being more of a 'hunch' on my part rather than an established fact. He's right in the sense that I hadn't taken the trouble to research the figures as he had, but the statement was made in the light of my using this little method of laying Any Unquoted when a team is three goals up for the past two seasons and being ahead despite the odd loss.

I'm not about to go digging into the stats in other leagues, people so motivated can do that for themselves, but I feel an apology is due.

I should not have written what I wrote presented as a fact without backing it up, whether or no I supplied the 'evidence' in the post. Had I phrased it slightly differently I could have got my point across without implying that the trade  I was suggesting was almost a sure fire winner. In my comment on Eddie's post I did qualify my approach to that particular trade.

Hopefully anyone reading the post and thinking of putting any of it into practice would be intelligent enough to assess the situation for themselves, including any research they deem necessary.

The post that Eddie took me to task over stemmed from a discussion about morality in trading. And whilst I have no qualms about winning money from other Betfair players (whatever their state of mind!) I would hate to think that someone lost a tidy sum from entering a trade s/he'd read about on here based on an unsubstantiated statement. So, going forward, I'll endeavour to be a little less lackadaisical is my approach to writing about the motivation behind certain trades that I do.

The key points about deciding to enter any trade, to me, are those I mentioned before...

1) Is it a valid trade?
2) Can I afford the loss if it goes wrong?
3) Can I live with the result?

This is true whether the trade under consideration is one of your own making, from a 'system' you are following or from an idea gleaned from some lunatic you don't know personally writing on the interweb!

P.S. No sooner had I published this post (written in part yesterday evening before heading out to a party!) that I noticed that Eddie has posted again on this subject. As usual, his points are well worth reading!

I'd rather a Layer be!

IronyPirate (IP henceforth!) asks a few questions in his comment on my post about the morality of trading, with regard to value backing / laying and their respective relationships with punting over trading. They were largely rhetorical questions, but I've never let that stop me from having an opinion!

Like IP I've found that as I've matured as a trader when looking for in-play opportunities I'd rather a layer be.

When I first discovered Betfair it took me a long time to get my head around what laying something actually meant. The clues were there, even in the generic description of how Betfair and similar sites operate - i.e. they are Betting Exchanges. As a backer I offer to exchange my stake for your liability as a layer, and vice versa.

In my early days, trying to chase the price of a few nags up and down a ladder the lay was simply the thing I had to do in order to 'green up' my position. And something strange happened a lot and I doubt I'm alone in this....If I'd backed a horse and the odds started to drift I'd stick with the trade. If I'd laid a horse and it started to steam I'd get out with the speed of a scalded cat. How daft is that? Once I'd started to notice this phenomenon I also noticed that almost without exception the drifting horse I'd backed carried on drifting, whilst the steaming nag that I'd laid came back to or went out beyond my entry price.

I was letting backs run and cutting lays short because my basic mindset was that of someone whose only exposure to betting in any way, shape or form had been by making a choice and backing it. The idea of losing money because my 'selection' won was anathema to me. It went against the grain and against all my instincts. Strangely, I accepted that losing back bets was part and parcel of the choice made.

The Eureka moment came when I read (and I really wish I could remember where I read it!) that it is much easier to pick one from, say, ten, to lose than it was to pick one from ten to win! I then started to lay outcomes. The inevitable happened - you know, a long winning streak followed by an increase in stakes followed by the one winner which wiped out all previous gains and more. Ouch!

Being by nature a chap with a positive outlook on things I started to look more closely at what I was doing. And now you'll often find me entering what, on the face of it, look like suicidal lays. Man U 3-0 against West Brom, 44 minutes gone. Lay Any Unquoted. A team (preferably the Gooners!) 2-0 up at half time. Lay them. A game with a strong home favourite against mediocre opposition and at odds on... lay them.

The nice thing about trading rather than selecting an outcome and running with it is that you don't have to stick with the trade. Many more games that are 3-0 at half time end at that score or 3-1, 3-2 etc than go over four goals. Very often a team 2-0 up will concede a goal, giving the opportunity to cover your liability and let the trade run or to hedge completely. A home favourite might well go on and win the match, but there's a decent profit to be had at half time if it is still 0-0 or of course should the dogs nick a goal! By and large all these situations offer lays at odds on... so even if you left them alone you'd need less than a 50% strike rate to come out on top...

The key point is that in the CS example at 3-0 by laying AU you have 3-0, 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 working for you and only a fourth goal to the leaders going against you. In the lay the favourites example the thing working on your side mainly is time decay...the odds will drift as time goes by. A goal to the dog is  a 'Brucie Bonus' in this situation. And many, many 2 goal leads (or higher!) evaporate - even those where you might be laying at 1.01 ... ask those who backed the Gooners at 0-4 against Newcastle a couple of years ago!

Which brings me to another point IP raised - the question of to what degree such actions are punting rather than trading. A tricky one to answer really. I suppose for me it's more a question of your intent after you've entered the position. I normally do something to minimise my exposure as time goes by if I can in the AU lay. I know this gives away profit and possibly value, but my records vindicate this course of action. So to me that's more of a trade than a punt because I have an exit planned. If I've laid at odds of less that 1.2 my instinct usually is to leave it more often than not so I guess that makes it a bit more of a punt.

One thing you can be assured of though... if I've laid something at low odds for a few hundred quid and it's come in, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the mental state of the backer!

Been suffering a bit recently....

.. had a nasty attack of Blogger's Cramp. I'm finding it difficult, at the moment, to come up with anything to write about that is new, different and potentially of interest to anyone.

Elsewhere in blogland there are some interesting debates going on... about multi-monitor trading set ups, tipping services that might not present the reasoning behind their tips in a meaningful manner, and to top it off a debate about how 'moral' sports trading is!

This last one got me thinking. If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, head over to Sultan's place and have a read for yourself.

'Speedwave' seems to have a bit of an issue with the possibility of wiping someone's bank out by taking their money in one fell swoop. He goes even further, painting the at once quite alarming and somewhat comical picture of some poor sap who'd put his life savings on a 1.05 shot hanging himself! Hmm.. makes me wonder if Speedwave has suffered a big loss backing a short odds 'certainty'. 1.01 he has!

Is there a moral issue here? Not in my book. The person who wants to back something at 1.05 for £1,000 essentially wants the £50 I'm willing to lay it for. Conversely, I want his grand! If 'fair exchange is no robbery' essentially the questions would be backers and layers need to ask themselves are as follows...

1) Am I entering a valid trade?
2) Can I afford to lose the sum of money that I'm investing if it goes wrong?
3) Can I live with the outcome, whichever way it goes?

If the answer to all three is 'yes' - then do it - if not, then don't! It's your decision, your bank and your judgement.  No-one else's!

Years ago I was returning home on the last train after a night on the sauce in London. The carriage compartments in those days each had a chain to be pulled in the event of an emergency to stop the train. Underneath the chain  was a notice warning of a £50 fine for improper use.

Maybe not quite in the same class as Shakespeare, Milton or Wilfred Owen, but some wannabee Bard had scrawled underneath the warning the following:

If to £50 you have a claim,
Be a lad, and pull the chain!
If £50 you do not own,
Leave the f*****g thing alone!

Much the same with a short odds trade, I'd say!