16+ Handicaps- 1/4 odds 4 places vs 1/5 odds 5 places
-
Any thoughts on the old debate that has popped up a few times on the bad ew thread
+0June 25, 2020 at 12:14 pm
-
-
New to matched betting?
My Matched Betting Academy is the best place to get started. Learning the fundamentals takes 10-15 minutes and you’ll make £15 in the process.
Learning the fundamentals takes 10-15 minutes and you’ll make £15 in the process.
Had a few minutes of spare time this morning and still had that ‘debate’ running around in my head about what is better in a random 16+ handicap..(a) 1/4 4 places or (b) 1/5 odds 5 places
Heres a very simple breakdown…Using $10 each way as stakes
16 runner (HCAP) 1/4 4 places
All horses are amazingly all of equal ability/weights and all quoted at that true reflected price of 15/1- meaning you will break even at win odds in the long run. Because they will win on average 1/16 races- also they will fill out all other posistions in the race 1/16 times..so will hit a 2nd/3rd and 4th place 1/16 times each. Also will hit the other 12 posistions(losing bets) in race 1/16 times.
16 x $20 in bets= $320
1x 1st place + 150 + 37.50 for place = + $187.50
1X 2nd/3rd and 4th = 3x + 27.50 = +$82.50
12 x $20 lost = -$240Total bets 16 x $20 ($320) return ($350) + $30
Same scenerio for 1/5 odds 5 places
1 x 1st place = + 150 + 30 place = + $180
1 x 2nd/3rd/4th and 5th= 4x + $20 = + $80
11 x $20 lost = -$220Total bets 16 x $20 ($320) return ($360) + $40
Conclusion..
In an equal chance 16 runner race the 1/5 odds 5 places is slightly better than 1/4 odds 4 places when odds on horse are the same. With 1/4- 4TP yielding just under +10% and 1/5- 5TP the better return at +12.5%.
Altough its always been against the grain on here this is what I always thought- never thought there was much in it either way. Pretty much goes back to take the best price and accept the terms when ever one sees an overall each way arb. But if one was only able to place 1 bet and was was faced with same 15/1 choice in this example race-then siding with the 1/5 5TP is the preffered choice according to this simplified ‘study’
As I’ve also said before, different scenerios ie shorter fav/lots of big price horses/more runners will obviously effect the dynamics of the choices. But perhaps 1/5 5TP will always edge out 1/4 4TP in value- I dont know- Would take a lot of time and effort to try and dissect all the many variables.
Am happy with this basic breakdowns result and will always go with best price/whatever terms if I can find an overall each way arb in these type of races factoring in possible things like NRs forcing changes to terms. Races near the cut off would be another dynamic- ie is it better to be on 1/5 5TP when the race is close to the 16r Minimum- because if it goes below 16 you will then be on 1/5 4 places rather than the opposite 1/4 3 places.
My advice (and has pretty much always been) is side with the 1/5 5TP on most occasions.+0For all those numptys who used to scoff at the 1/5 5TP saying ‘I dont go near them-only hit the 1/4 4TP terms’….haha,, read that piece and weep…
Anyone who doubts the Scabba knowledge/theories is alwyas welcome to a discussion on them…‘“We talk about it for 20 minutes and then we decide I was right”
Brian Clough+0Although there are some 16+ possible races where without doubt the 1/4 odds 4 places would be better .One such case would be 4 equal horses all at 3/1 odds and 12 tortoises of equal callibre etc all quoted at 5,000-1. Then I would side with the 1/4 odds 4 places for sure!
+0Actually having thought more about that Horses and Tortoises ‘Race’ example-Id still of course have to go with 1/5 5 places. Back all 12 Tortoises for a $10 each way at 1000-1- and guarntee profit on those Tortoise bets of 1 getting a top 5 spot and returning just short of $1800 profit!. May have to wait a bit for the result to come in! (banking on the fact that they are trained racing turtles and know what they are supposed to do)
Its 5 places 1/5 all the way!+0Nice work Scabba, 👍👍
+0Cheers Tony- that topic has been floating around since I joined up a few years back
+0
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.