A look at laying and dutching

[U4EA]

This is something I have been meaning to get a better understanding of since I started constantly talking utter, pointless bollocks in the TGT chat box when I surely must have something better to do with my life posting on TGT regularly.

Everytime I look to lay or dutch the "other side" of a bet, I am increasingly thinking "am I doing the correct thing here?".

Now, I think we all know that professional gambling is as much an art as a science, but there are some standard principles and mathematics behind much of it. For instance, some people have mentioned to me that they never lay SNRs anymore, instead accepting that they will win more than they lose, but it evens itself out in the end. At the same time, munk and I have discuseed a more tanglible aspect of over/under dutching/laying - if an account which carries a deposit charge (such IW) and has a balance that is starting to run low, you might want to over lay/dutch in order to compensate for charges you will have to accept in order to top-up the account should the bet lose at the bookie.

However, that is an unusual circumstance as most books don't have such charges. And I am starting to think that - under normal circumstances - it is best to just fully underlay everything. Why? Well, it's pretty simple - money sitting in a book waiting to be withdrawn doesn't get a ROI. If the money is sitting in the exchanges/Asian, you can make a ROI on it pretty easily. And - if you are arbing (taking an overvalued line) - what is the point in fully laying it, which seems to be effectively removing some of that value?

The final straw for me was tonight when I arbed a football match at 3.8/3.6 and overlayed in the hope that the team would lose as they were underdogs. They won. Poop.

Thoughts, opinions, experiences, suggestions?

[dulence]

I've recently decided to stop laying smaller offers (wh bogofs, uwin cashbacks and such). The reason being reduced value from getting less than fair odds at the exchanges (asians included here), less time required to sort out a bet, less tied up funds (a major factor for me at the moment) and more fun. I do the same with some of the less than reputable bookies, arbs I wouldn't get on due to low limits or roi %. Most of all, I've noticed the trend of never withdrawing from my exchanges and asians yet always lacking money there, so I've basically considered that as having a trial run.

[U4EA]

Another thing to consider might be a degree of palp protection (although technically asians and exchanges can palp).

[billysastard]

If something carries a WR then I will always underlay/dutch. If it wins I have a bit more money as compensation for having to bet again, and should mean I make profit ontop of the bonus. If it loses, great job done, less money but can move those funds on somewhere else and make more money.

The stuff like will hills, if I can lock in a profit, then I will do. I do those offers over 4 accounts (me/mrs/in-laws), so locking in on 4 accounts turns over a nice amount. Uwin I underlay the favourite, so if it wins I am £10 up, if it loses oh well, play the freebie, and anything over what I lost on the qual from underlaying is then profit. Might not be much, but still profit.

Not done IW yet so cant comment on over-laying.

[U4EA]

Anyone else have any thoughts? Andy? Munk?

[munk]

I think Andy's a bit busy right now with an overseas trip. I've been a bit busy as well to be honest, sorry!

I have actually just answered someone regards this here:

http://www.thegamblingtimes.com/boar...tml#post201071

(This was in reply to someone that asked what tips they would give themselves if they were starting over again)

This thread covers that specific question:

http://www.thegamblingtimes.com/boar...art-again.html

so have a look there for some more answers.

I think I probably said it in that thread above, but I'll say it again - if I was starting over again, backing at the bookies and laying it off at an exchange/another book/whatever, I would always make sure I don't make any profit if I lose a back bet at a bookie if that bookie is likely to limit me if I win there (which generally is 99% of bookies!). So basically underlay everything so that if the back bet loses at the bookie, I make just enough profit at the lay side to cover the back stake, but if the back bet does win, then I make a much larger profit.

Why do this? Well bookies don't like it when you win there more than a few times and they start limiting you fairly quickly in some cases. As such (I think) it's best to maximize your profits when you win at a book so as to make winning at the book a 'premium', compensating yourself for the fact that you're now one step closer to no longer having that account.

I suppose this doesn't make a lot of sense when you're starting out. It's such a novelty being able to make the same amount of profit whether you win or lose that you invariably do that just for the kick of it. But over time as you lose more and more accounts, you look back and really curse having not maximized the profits on the bookie side - well I do anyway. Always put a premium on any win you have at the bookie whereever possible.

So... pretty much as above, I think it generally makes sense to not make any profit at all if a back bet loses at a bookie that is likely to limit you sooner rather than later. So for example if I was arbing Sportinbet against Pinnacle, I would never ever make a profit at Pinnacle if the bets won on that side, I'd always hedge them so that I made zero profit if the bets won at Pinnacle. Alternatively if the bets did win at Sportingbet, I'd make sure the profit was a lot larger because SB are much more likely to limit you more quickly than Pinnacle. It just makes sense to compensate yourself for that fact.

This kind of question regards how to hedge your bets becomes even more salient when you're talking about US books that generally have larger wagering requirements. Andy has written several excellent posts about betting at US books and how to hedge your bets so that you maximize the value.

Essentially the idea is that if you receive a bonus up front, but there's a very large WR attached to the bonus, then you would underlay the first bet heavily so that if you lost the first bet then you make a smaller overall profit but you don't have the hassle of having to see the full WR through. Alternatively if that first bet wins then at least you've made a decent larger profit from that win, which goes some way to compensating you for having to continue the wagering requirement.

So an example of that... say you deposit $400 at BookA, get a $100 bonus with a 4x(d+b)=$2k WR. That's quite a heavy WR, so you dump the full $500 on the first bet and hedge the bets on the other side so that if you lose at BookA, you make a $50 loss on that matched bet (but because you got a $100 bonus to start with, actually you're up $50 overall). Alternatively if it wins though you stand to make a $50-100 profit which compensates you for having to carry on with the WR (so overall you're actually up $100-150, so potentially waht you could do with the next bet is hedge it so you lose say $80 if that bet loses which would leave you up $70 overall OR if it wins you'd be up even more, say $200+ overall).

Another way of doing it is to deposit at BookA get one bonus, deposit at BookB to get another bonus and then just dutch them against one another so that no matter what happens you've busted out of one of the books and you're free to hopefully redeposit there for another bonus.

An example of this from tonight:

I deposited $100 into BookA for a $100 bonus. WR is 5x(D+B)=$1000.
I deposited $400 into BookB for an $80 bonus. WR is 4x(d+b)=$1920.

Tampa vs Carolina:
Back $200@+240 on Tampa at BookB
Back $480@-240 on Caronlina at BookA

Now whatever happens, I make zero loss on this bet and I will definitely bust out of one book or another. If the bet wins at BookA, my balance there will be $680 and the balance at bookB will be zero. In that case I can reload at BookB and go at it again. Alternatively if I win at BookB the same happens again, I've busted out of BookA so I can rinse/repeat again with a reload at BookA.

[nixonite]

Interesting post, and one with so many potential solutions/ answers/ points of argument.

Everytime I look to lay or dutch the "other side" of a bet, I am increasingly thinking "am I doing the correct thing here?".

Now, I think we all know that professional gambling is as much an art as a science, but there are some standard principles and mathematics behind much of it. For instance, some people have mentioned to me that they never lay SNRs anymore, instead accepting that they will win more than they lose, but it evens itself out in the end.

Something worth pointing out here is that this applies under a very narrow set of rules IN THEORY. The idea behind this is that the larger a sample size (i.e. number of bets) the likelier they are to adhere to the principles discussed above. However, in practice it is not so straightforward. You might end up going on a losing run at the bookies which wipes out your entire balance, before you get a chance to 'even out'. Alas, if you really want to stop laying/ dutching, you would need unlimited bankroll, a huge number of bets, and cajones the size of Jupiter.

At the same time, munk and I have discuseed a more tanglible aspect of over/under dutching/laying - if an account which carries a deposit charge (such IW) and has a balance that is starting to run low, you might want to over lay/dutch in order to compensate for charges you will have to accept in order to top-up the account should the bet lose at the bookie.

However, that is an unusual circumstance as most books don't have such charges.

This should be pretty straightforward TBH. Foreign bookies with exchange rates should be handled the same way, as should those with absolutely dire odds and large WR. 'Pure' matched betting should be where the returns of all outcomes is equalled. If losing money on exchange rates, deposits/ withdrawals etc. you want to have extra money in the book to cover this.

And I am starting to think that - under normal circumstances - it is best to just fully underlay everything. Why? Well, it's pretty simple - money sitting in a book waiting to be withdrawn doesn't get a ROI. If the money is sitting in the exchanges/Asian, you can make a ROI on it pretty easily. And - if you are arbing (taking an overvalued line) - what is the point in fully laying it, which seems to be effectively removing some of that value?

I don't understand your ROI comment. Surely if your money is sitting in an exchange it is just as useless if you don't have enough/ no money to deposit into a book? In addition, withdrawal times for some books are actually better than the exchanges, so I don't think it's as easy as it seems.

The final straw for me was tonight when I arbed a football match at 3.8/3.6 and overlayed in the hope that the team would lose as they were underdogs. They won. Poop.

Something worth considering in the statement above. How much 'enjoyment' did you get when placing the overlay ('bet')? Was the amount lost worth the enjoyment/ thrill you might have obtained when overlaying? If it was, then nothing lost and just think of the overlay as 'spending' some of your money on enjoyment.

I did have some more to discuss, but I'm in a hurry and I forgot what most of it was.....