- This topic has 58 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
<br>We touched on this topic in the ‘how do I make a book’ topic and I felt it a good enough subject to start a debate. I believe it is a poor bet designed by bookies to give them further advantages and I couldn’t believe the support this bet type recieved. How on earth can this be a good bet as if it were a good bet then surely the bookies would take place bets AND win bets. The bet is similar to the CSF which is heavily in favor of the designers (bookmakers). <br>Keith made a valid point that it is a comfort blanket for people who can’t handle losing runs. <br>I do back each way but only on horses 40/1 or above as a kind of saver although I realise that this is not strictly true as the odds are against me if I use this bet.<br>I no longer back each way on horses lower than 40/1 as I am prepared to wait for the winner and if it gets beat a nose then so be it as there will be others.
I read somewhere (can’t remember where or who) that backing short priced horses they had selected e/w and the longer priced ones to win.<br>What do you reckon to that idea?
You have to judge each individual case on its own merits.I don’t want to harp on about this but at Christmas I told anyone who would listen that Florida Pearl was the each way bet of all time.
Quite a simple reply from me is that if i can bet on a horse e/w and make some form of profit,then where is the problem of say backing a 12/1 shot e/w(1/5odds)or(1/4 odds).<br>I have to disagree about the ‘comfort blanket for long losing runs'<br>So if you can make a profit from doing e/w ,I dont think it is a waste of time.
(Edited by sidders at 12:32 pm on Jan. 22, 2002)
Wouldn’t youe hard earned be more profitable if you back win only? Just the losing runs will be longer but reward would be higher?
And if you are not confident enough to think it’s a winner wouldn’t it be best just to back the place bet, instead of losing your win bet?
I think the ‘comfort blaket’ is exactly what each way cetting is for people who don’t like losing runs.
I don’t understand the problem with each-way betting?
Each-way betting can be a value bet. If i had the choice to back a 1/2 fav or a 10/1 shot each-way, i’d go for the 10/1 shot e/w.
I’m with sidders on this (although I’m probably not a good example as I have no system, no fixed stake, and couldn’t tell you if my betting was profitable or not!).
However – I would always prefer each-way betting on a longer priced (10-1+) runner that I thought had a strong chance of being placed.  To back a shorter priced runner ‘win only’ requires a lot more certainty, and I find it easier to regularly pick horses that run well into the frame than to find a sequence of winners. ÂÂÂ
Why not bet place only?  I don’t think my anger management techniques :biggrin: could cope with continuously working out how much I would have won, had I backed 20-1 winners e.w. rather than place only – and if the 20-1 is second its still as good as a short-priced winner.  My total stake for a win bet would still be the same as for an e.w.
More run for my money, either way. :) ÂÂÂ
The point I’m trying to make here it IS a bad value bet and IS in the bookmakers favor.
<br>I don’t understand the problem with each-way betting?
Each-way betting can be a value bet. If i had the choice to back a 1/2 fav or a 10/1 shot each-way, i’d go for the 10/1 shot e/w
A 10/1 shot that finishes 2nd, backed each way produces return odds of 5/4 (assuming that it was 1/4 the odds) – hardly seems such a great price now eh?
This bet is firmly in the bookies favor (apart from the very rare occasion) so why put yourself at a disadvantage before you start?
well chaps, I must be one of the few people always back each way. I must admit to betting win only on anything shorter than 3-1 , but anything over usually is an ew bet.
That way, I mightnt win as much ,but I certainly dont lose as much either.<br>
Let’s call it £50 win on the 1/2 shot – if it wins, we make a profit of £25 (please tell me if my Maths goes wrong!).
If we have £25 e/w on the 10/1 shot (1/4 odds) and it is second we make a profit of £37.50.
Let’s say each bet came from a bank of £100.
After the 1/2 win our bank would read £125
After the 10/1 e/w second our bank would read £137.5
If all the above is correct (still awake out there guys?) then surely the 10/1 e/w second was better value than the 1/2 win bet.
The maths of each way betting is pretty simple and has been explained on another post. The only time the simple maths of ew favours the bettor is when 1/4 the odds first 4 in 16 runner events. A few examples follow
8 runner events a very popular medium generally 1/5th the odd first 3
True price of each runner 7/1 therefore returned place price 1.4-1 actual chance of a place 1.66-1 . This is ignoring overround.
12 runners 1/4 the odds first 3
11/1 equates to 2.75-1 the place actual chance of a place 3-1.
16/1 1/4 odds first four
15/1 equates to 3.75-1 the place actual price 3-1
<br>Of course the specific make up of a race might make a certain selection value each way but the maths as above is fact and in the long run ew betting is bad value. The figures above ignore overround and the effect of the losing win stakes.
Rob your maths is right but your argument in wrong this doesn’t illustrate value in any way shape or form why not make your 10/1 shot a 100/1 shot then the value is even better. The truth of the matter is if you back 10/1 shots ew or 1/2 shots win blindly you will lose far less on the 1/2 shots in fact you might even make a profit on them.
Nice senario Rob but remember a 10/1 chance has conderable less chance of being placed than a 1/2 shot has of being placed! The odds are irrelivant really as in most cases an each way bet means you won’t get a fair return.
I was just trying to suggest that in my scenario the 10/1 e/w was better value than the 1/2 win if the latter won and the 10/1 shot was placed. This kind of thing does happen and this is where I think each-way betting can be value.
Jjimps – yes, if you back 10/1 shots each-way blindly you are going to make a loss. I wouldn’t want to back them blindly though – i’d want to be selective and find the 10/1 shots who are better value each-way than the 1/2 shots who may not be good value to win.
I wouldn’t want to back 1/2 shots blindly either – you’d need a good strike-rate and sizeable stakes to make a profit.
I tend to agree with what you said earlier DL – the ‘comfort blanket’ theory. Perhaps many punters like to seek out each-way bets to hold off losing runs.
If you backed every 10/1+ shot you came across to win i wonder what the profit would be compared to backing every 10/1+ you came across each-way. Would be interesting to see the results.
When i say every 10/1+ i should have said every 10/1+ shot that meets your criteria or your way of picking horses.
(Edited by robgomm at 3:08 pm on Jan. 22, 2002)
The ONLY time each way betting is FAIR is when it’s a 16-17 runner handicap, so most each way bets are not a good bets as you are backing smaller odds than you should be. This is not ‘value’ just simple maths that says EW is a bad bet.
Would you still back the CSF now although you now know how bad value it is? Same principles apply to an each way bet to a lesser extent.
so you see, e.w. betting can be MORE profitable than betting to win….you just have to make sure you pick the right horses…..
<br> <br>This is just not true unless you only back in 16-17 runner races, any other races make your post very misleading and incorrect as you are heightening your chances long term. I suppose the money you donate to the bookies on this bet is the cost of a comfort blanket nowadays thought….;)
If a bookie said to you "you can have that bet at SP with me as long as you give me 10% of any winnings" –  what would you say? – ‘yes’ or ‘no'<br>
so you see, e.w. betting can be MORE profitable than betting to win….you just have to make sure you pick the right horses…..
How can this not be true? Esc gave a good example where e/w betting was more profitable than betting to win. There are plenty of that kind of scenario around – there ARE times when betting e/w can be more profitable than betting to win.
There are probably no hard-and-fast rules, but I have to say I’m with Daylight all the way on this one.
There are occasions when an each way bet = a value bet. I’m thinking in particular of a smallish field where the market is dominated by one or two horses. A recent example that springs to mind is the Xmas Hurdle, in which Bust Out proved each way value at 20/1. Only 6 ran in that race; an 8 runner field with a similar profile would be ideal.
Having said that, I don’t like each way betting at all, and steer well clear as much as possible. I know there are plenty of shrewd punters who include each way betting in their armoury. I know there are others who swear by win-only betting. I’m in the latter camp.
I tend to look for winners in the 8/1 or above bracket, so I’m always going to have to live with a pretty low strike rate. If I think my selection has more chance of running into a place than winning, I do consider buying it low on the spreads. I’ve carried out no detailed research, but it seems to me that the place terms are much more attractive on the spreads than with a traditional bookie.
Rob,<br>It isn’t true Escorial lost whether it won or lost – a concept that seems hard for some to grasp as it doesn’t just come down to picking your winnings up and thinking – that was a good!
Esc,<br>Afternoon sir :wave:<br>
good afternoon DL!……….did I not just prove to you that backing e.w. in a 13 runner race can be profitable….as long as you have got it right?…..
This was in fact a very bad bet – albeit this time it won and the readies ease the fact but a 13 runner race is a bad race in which to back each way!
<br>Rob & Ecs can you two answer this question please?
If a bookie said to you "you can have that bet at SP with me as long as you give me 10% of any winnings" –  what would you say? – ‘yes’ or ‘no’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.