Ducth Backing the Field to Lay a Selection

[mjworcester1988]

Hello Grussanites,

I am wondering if anyone has previously attempted to back the field instead of laying an individual runner.

i.e. I identify a favourite that I don't think will win, but lay liquidity on this runner is low (occurs more frequently in Aus where our pools are only a shade of UK). Instead, and assuming the book is close to 100%, I back each of the other runners for a profit equal to my usual lay stake.

Mathematically the result is identical with respect to liability and payoff profiles/amounts (assuming book set at 100%).

Is this approach possible in practice or are there too many bets/ triggers/ not enough back liquidity/ etc.?

I've played with one of Os' dutching sheets and working out the stake/profit/loss isn't much trouble. However linking that into a trigger is doing my head in.

For instance - if I want to lay a $10 stake on a horse with $5 liquidity available at odds of $5.00 - I need my trigger to lay that $5 conventionally, then check for the most profitable way to lay the remaining $5 - either by laying at one roll out where another $5 liquidity may be available, or by backing all of the other runners for a level profit of $5.

In practice I envisage placing the full $10 lay at odds of $5 for a few seconds in order to trigger any bets that may be waiting in the shadows, then either rolling those odds up one tick, or retracting that bet, clearing the bet references and backing the other runners for a profit equal to the difference.

I don't fancy a partially matched dutch so I would be looking to ensure there is sufficient back-side liquidity in each of the other runners prior to placing the wad of back bets (although I may be tempted to forget runners >eg.101)

Oh and just to complicate things further sometimes I lay 3, 4, 5 or even more horses in a field!!!

In certain circumstances this ought to provide me with some more liquidity. However is it worth the trouble? Especially considering that rounding the stakes may corrupt the mathematics anyway?

Thanks

[Captain Sensible]

The problem will always come down to getting filled on all runners whether. You may find that your back bets only get taken on the losers and a small amount taken on the winner especially in weak markets.

I've had spreadsheets in the past doing similar things where I'd look for the best case scenario of whether to back or lay for the most profitable outcome. I think I binned it simply because you'd end up chasing prices on runners with weak liability and cross matching sometimes eats up prices you don't want. I found it was much better to go for the option with least bets especially with cross matching running.

For the AUS stuff I'd always thought the markets did run close to the 100%'s at the off think I'd try and rely on the cross matching to fill your fav lay rather than risking getting filled by backing the field. Much better to have only part of your lay matched than having the winner the only unfilled bet in your matches