My blog

Just another WordPress site

The Laying Game

By Leave a Comment

20 June 2018

If you are a lay betting type then being able to do this successfully using low priced selections is very much the holy grail. I became involved in the sports betting review world after a costly venture into lay betting in 2010 where the headlines and the reality were very much opposed. The experience also introduced me to a former system developer who has forgotten more about racing and betting than most know and who always said he had searched for a system to lay low priced horses but never managed it.

The Laying Game is targeted at finding the low priced favourites that the author does not think will justify their support. He uses form analysis in similar fashion to those who try to tip winners and accepts that he is not going to get it right all the time but with the prices low any pain should be both minimal and quickly recoverable. He advises that he will probably find around 6 possibles a week.

A betting bank of 25 points is recommended with normal staking at 1 point per selection. Occasionally selections are advised at half stakes. With selections at the top of the market liquidity is not an issue here.

Selections are advised by email which includes the rationale behind the choice. Normally there is no price limit but when considered appropriate a maximum is advised. The services results are assessed at BSP but  the user is advised they can back at any time if a price is below a maximum set. This is good practice allowing potential clients a clear view of what to expect.

Just a quick note about the BWR proofing – the system used will only take BSP into account for calculating performance metrics. This does not matter here where the service is happy to accept that BSP is its yardstick. I would also mention that some time into the trial the half stake option was introduced – this is not an option on the system so all stakes shown are 1 point. (The net effect of this is to reduce profits shown on this site by 0.43 points)

The trial has seen 108 bets with 74 (68.5%) successful at average odds of 3.49. The highest price seen was 11.5 and we went as low as 1.39. A winning sequence of 12 bets was seen with the worst losing run 4 in succession. After a slow start the progress seen was good through to May when a losing run meant a set back although this was almost recovered by the end of the month. June saw a poor start but again recovery is well underway and overall we are showing a profit of 12.86 points having seen a 21 point peak. The Return on Stakes is over 4% which is on the low side now.

The author does not hide away from the performance and has discussed the recent downturn openly and that he will be fine tuning his process. I often comment on the need for confidence where laying is involved and the way this service has operated has underpinned this area even when a poor run is seen. There is no doubt that the subscribers bank is a prime consideration in the process.

When we consider value against the subscription levels the low number of bets means margins are tight. We were seeing 5 points a month profit until recently which at a cost of £6 to achieve is well into the mid price range. Staking £25 per point would leave a profit of around £100 per month when performing well.

If the present recovery continues then the prospects are good here. A genuine service with the punter very much at the top of the consideration list. A positive rating is justified and hopefully the numeric rating improved when we update the review.

The Daily Lay

By Leave a Comment

17 June 2018

Even though the marketing for this service was typical of the standard marketing mafia offerings, the web page itself was well presented and not full of inflated claims about profits or lifestyle. And our review request was met positively which is another positive sign.

The service aims to provide a lay tip to subscribers on 95% of racing days and the results shown for 2017 indicate a profit of 150 points in the year. Selections are sent by email, in theory the night before racing, and you can either take a price when the tip is received or lay at BSP subject to the maximum price recommended of 4.50. A betting bank of 25 points is suggested with stakes at 1 point level. The downside is therefore 3.5 points or less per selection. Our assessment is based on BSP prices as the advised prices will not necessarily be available to subscribers.

Please note that on the BWR automatic proofing only the BSP price is used so other price options are not relevant. This is a quirk of the software and applies to all lay services proofed this way.

Following the service is certainly simple although there are no emails if a selection is not offered for the day and the timing varies significantly when they do come. There is no commentary or reasoning with the selections.

We have over 5 months of monitoring the service now but in that time just 79 selections have become bets. Many became invalid due the the odds exceeding 4.50 and while the service may argue there were more viable bets based on early prices the variable timing means potential difficulties for some subscribers in placing their bets.

Even more of an issue is the strike rate which is just 64.6% compared to the 82.7% seen last year. The average odds have been 3.22 with a best winning run of 6 bets against a losing sequence of 3. Despite a positive start the bank is now showing a loss of 6.58 points.

No comment has been made by the author as regards the poor performance. He has been quite ready to email us about other wonderful services he has come across but perhaps his energies would be better spent addressing the issues at home.

In the light of these results we could not recommend the service and must classify it as failed. Sadly the initial promise has not been fulfilled at any point in the trial to date.

 

Merlin Lays

By Leave a Comment

18 June 2018

The Tipster Street operation has been around for a long time now and operates professionally with open results reporting and good customer service. They cover most sports with horse racing being the prime sector and here we have a lay betting service which is email based and aims to offer an average of 2 bets daily. The website offers historic performance metrics but no insight into the approach taken or the credentials of the author.

Selections are advised by email (or can be found in a members area of the site) and usually are available mid morning on the day of racing. A betting bank of 100 points is advised and all selections are intended to be placed at BSP with level stakes of 1 point. No odds restrictions are suggested. An advice is given if there are no selections on any specific day and when there are merely the course time and horse name are shown. No analysis of selections is offered and historically the average price has been around 4.0.

As with other lay betting services a reminder that the BWR proofing only takes into account BSP prices even though the other options are still shown. With this service not a problem of course!

Our review has now spanned 6 months and there have been 365 runners in that time with 286 successful at a strike rate of 78.4% which is much in line with the historic results. The average odds are somewhat higher than advertised at 5.75 with losing bets slightly higher at 6.14. Prices up to 39.78 BSP have been seen which might be a little too high for many. The best successful sequence is 14 bets with a losing run of 3 experienced.

All this activity has resulted in a profit of just 8.66 points and were it not for the recent upturn seen (15 points since mid May) the bank would not be in profit. As may be seen from the overall performance chart the experience has been rather like a ride at Alton Towers with no really consistent spells to instil confidence in the subscriber. The ROI at 0.5% is not a recommendation and many of the recovery staking plans that might be considered are showing the risk would not be justified.

With a modest month 1 subscription it is possible to check out the service with minimal outlay. The ongoing subscriptions are at the low end of the market and have little impact on the decision to accept the service. With lay betting the main consideration is confidence as potentially losing more than your stake is never a positive experience. Here we have seen a mixed picture – the initial losses likely to mean a cautious attitude to taking the service. If you started in May, however, you might wonder what the problem is!

At this stage I think a neutral rating is appropriate and should the recent upturn continue a revised rating will be considered.

 

Lay Bet Kings

By Leave a Comment

The website for this service is not unduly overstated which is a nice change and what you are being offered is set out quite clearly with an explanatory video on how a lay bet is placed. Nice touch but a point or three lost for not detailing the past results. A note saying we average 18 points profit is pretty meaningless without some back up and for such a simple service as this there is no reason not to proof to Racing Index. The authors are very shy with no names offered nor location details.

The welcome email advises that you will get daily selections around midday and that the horses mentioned should be laid. No staking advice so we have assumed a 1 point stake and based on the quoted strike rate in excess of 91% a 100 point bank should be more than adequate.

No mention is made of maximum odds although the price advised in the email is usually about right – we would recommend using BSP for lay betting generally and certainly odds recording as it is the only verifiable price for services. Maximum BSP on selections received has been 8.4 but the majority are under 6.0.

All was going well in terms of selection advice until 11 November since when nothing has been heard despite emails seeking updates. At that point we had seen 24 selections and 18 were successful (75%) resulting in a profit of around 0.5 points.  The Twitter feed has gone quiet as well so we are unable to take this review any further.

Naturally the number of selections makes a conclusion impossible but taken with other factors such as poor reporting and communication we see no alternative but to categorise this one as failed.