Originally Posted by Grandthrax
That's what I'm saying. If the loss from laying a perfect match (i.e same odds at the bookie & the exchange) is 2.5% then the loss from laying an inferior match must surely be more than 2.5%?
(And therefore the gain from not matching must be more than 2.5%)
Simple example, assuming the law of averages & 5% BF commission etc:
£100 freebet @ 2.0 that can be laid at 2.0:
- If you do this twice & lay it each time then you get £97.44 back each time for a total profit of £194.88.
- If you do this twice without laying either time then you get back £200 + £0 for a toal profit of £200.00 which is just over 2.5% better as already discussed.
But now look at the sums if your 2.0 bet could only be laid at 2.1:
- If you do this twice & lay it each time then you get £92.68 back each time for a total profit of £185.36. In comparison, by not laying here you are nearly 7.5% better off.
Of course that assumes the unknowable - that 2.0 was the "true" price of your selection. And I think it's at that point that the debate becomes much more murky.
But I reckon a decent rule of thumb is that you will tend to be betting at slightly less than "true" odds & laying at slightly bigger than "true" odds so I think it does make a difference & that the overall loss through laying is something more than a simple 2.5%.
A practical application of this: if I have a freebet on a market that only offers horrible lay opportunities at BF, with huge discrepencies between the BF back & lay odds, I'd rather mug the freebie for a slim chance of a decent win than accept any old lay odds I could on BF just to lock in a much smaller profit.
That's just variance though Billy - if we assume you are getting value odds then you are effectively betting either without house edge or if on an arb with a player advantage.
Originally Posted by billysastard
The difference is the logistics - its not practical to grind out a w/r at a sportsbook at £1 bets like you might at a casino but if you did so on all value odds then the EV would be increased by laying.
So the bet sizes are larger and the variance is vastly increased - if you have an infinite bankroll then it didn't matter but we don't - hence the appeal of hedging our bets.
If we all pooled our resources and compared results it would show a loss of EV by hedging (dutching/laying whatever) but the guaranteed profit is the appeal for most of us at the end of the day...