You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Hedging Bets when deep in a Jackpot with wide coverage.
StayOrGo
Member Posts: 12,181
Hi guys, today was a tough day. A statistical "success" on one hand and some tough beats on the other.
I did manage to cover over 80% of the betting market in virtually every leg, so if the odds were a true reflection of the horses chance we did indeed have better than a 1 in 4 chance from a statistical perspective.
It has been mentioned to me before about hedging our bets after a good start to the Jackpot, and I would have loved to have done something here as we had such good coverage.
It would have meant backing, Peruvien Bleu in the 3.30pm. If that lost then backing Festive Affair and Fair Lock in the 4.00pm and then if they both lost, Fixed Rate, Mole Trap, Fernando and Crucial Role in the last.
I will spare you the maths but what it boils down to is that, for approx £400 outlay, I could have guaranteed us £400 "profit" to offset against our loss, if we didn't get the Jackpot, but I didn't feel I had the right to do it with your money.
It has been mentioned to me that perhaps we should do this type of hedging. (Although most often only from Leg5 onwards.)
The benefits are above, the drawbacks as follows:
1) It would make sense to back the relevant horses with the bookies that are offering the best odds, making audit difficult and less controlled.
2) I would have to be available to do it.
3) If we did win the Jackpot (in this scenario), our winnings would have been reduced by £400. OK if dividend is high, but maybe not if low.
4) I would post receipts and keep the thread updated.
5) You'd have to trust me to get the figures right.
In all likelihood we'd only do it from Leg5 onwards, and sometimes just leg6, othertimes we wouldn't do it at all.
This could be an important part of our strategy, it would have saved us today, but I feel uneasy doing this, for the reasons above, unless I have the full support and agreement from the syndicate members.
As such, please post on here, if you would like me to potentially do this.
Unless people are overwhelmingly in favour, we will leave it as is.
Cheers,
G
Comments
I agree that LEG4 is probably a bit soon in nearly all cases (today a possible exception).
What about, if for example, we have only two horses not selected in the 5th leg and two not selected in the sixth leg.
If we know it's going to be a reasonable dividend, would it not be wise to cover the 5th, and then subsequently the sixth if they lose and we are still in.
To me it's the audit tracking that becomes tricky.
I could just do the hedging on the betting account that I do the Jackpot on, but it seems silly to do it here if better odds are elsewhere.
Would be interested in Snuffer's and Dollie's views, from an audit perspective here.
Cheers,
G
A problem could be the amount we would have to put on if it is a short odds horses we leave out but that unlikely the way we are backing at the mo. ie the hedging is more attractive if we are putting a "relatively" small amount to make it worthwhile.
In a nutshell if its worthwhile doing I think we should alternatively look on the Brightside we are going to get so good at this we wont lose out again . LOL.
Something we should keep in mind if we can is as I said both our two losers were course winners might have even been C/D winners and perhaps a reminder to beware of those on naps and removing lists might help.
You are the statistics man as I could see with your help on wynnes post and a lot of us are horse mad. Both wynne and myself would probably admit that if we had your statistic knowledge we would be better.
However from my side and from other horse fans on here what I go for is value. That's why I said what I did re Dahik he should never have been that price on form. his value was rubbish however Azzuri today at 2-7 was value especially after Enola Gay was taken out. So us horsey types should have been telling you beware Dahik , go in hard on Azzurrri but we didn't. However we are going to be wrong sometimes , horses are funny old things and even make mugs of their trainers. T
What I am trying to say is remind us to give you as much info as poss. Also it might be useful if at the bottom of peoples naps /removals post set out for paste and copying, if they want they should be able to give their reasoning. I know some people wont have time for this but if they have, it would be helpful to you. Secondly sometimes , and I admit I was guilty of this before we went live , people might want to put entries into nap table /removals table and perhaps have not studied form hard enough to give a proper opinion. If you have some reasoning behind their decision it might route out the wheat from the chaff.
What you need from us horsey types is info
I believe in results over rhetoric, as that is tangible and undeniable, but clearly we need way more volume before it's meaningful.
Think about poker. You always get people who think they know it all, and tell everyone how to play when they may be a losing player, were as, others may be understated, modest, quiet, less forthcoming etc. but are a long term winning player.
Who would you listen too? This is the same for me re horses.
Results (over an extended period of time), hold true, so people should use their considerable knowledge to strive to top the leader boards in my opinion.
The people that make the best judgement, based on their horse knowledge, should in-time turn that into NAP table/Remover Table success or else, how they are applying their knowledge, or their knowledge may be floored.
You clearly know a lot about horses, so this is not aimed at you, but knowledge needs to equal results over time or the knowledge is misplaced.
I will pay particular attention to the tables relating to GO-LIVE scenarios, but still do add comments, but past results will take sway over comments as time progresses and we have more volume to go on.
Granted, the leader boards are meaningless at the moment, as there is no volume to go on.
So a note to all. You want me to stand up and take note when you place your picks, do well in the league tables. Especially the live ones.
Simples :=)
G
I think I mentioned in a previous post that I and a friend have a weekly football bet. We back the same 8 teams on a weekly basis, 8 seven folds and 1 eightfold, 9 bets at £1. We made a profit of £555 on an outlay of £378 this season. We had one week when 6 teams played on the Saturday and all won, the other 2 played on the Sunday. If one of our teams won on the Sunday we would have had a minimum return of £58, therefore a profit of £49. If both teams won our return would have been over £700. We decided to hedge and bet on all combinations of the other teams results. This cost an additional £15.50 in stake and gave a guaranteed a £50 return if both our selected teams did not win. Neither of our teams did win so we got a return £50 for a total stake of £24.50, better than losing £9 if we had done nothing. This demonstrates that hedging does work.
As far as hedging on our Jackpot Syndicate it is, in my view, quite simple. If it can be demonstrated that any combination of bets can guarantee a return that is greater than the stake required, then do it. I appreciate that if the jackpot bet does come in then the hedge bet stake is dead money and reduces the overall return, but it is probable that our chances of the jackpot coming in are far less than even anyway.
From an audit point of view what is needed? Quite simple I think.
I have no real view as to when a hedge bet may be placed, 5th leg or 6th leg etc., to me it is for the experts (and the maths) to decide.
I have seen Bearace’s “bath time” post and Snuffer’s response and yes, it makes a lot of sense.