betfair exchange

banja

banja

banja

Soldato
Joined
4 Aug 2006
Posts
2,523
Does anyone bet on betfair exchange?

I'm a little confused about the back / lay options. If there's just two outcomes, what's the difference between laying team A to lose and backing team B to win? Isn't the result exactly the same? But the odds are different.
 
I always bet on there...

Say the match was Man Utd vs Liverpool

You lay Man Utd your basically saying they will not win, so lose or draw you win... However the odd change a lot and the bet you lay must get matched as your betting against other people basically

I just had a lay bet against sheff wed to not win 1-0... Luckily Cardiff scored
 
Thanks, I understand that when there's win / lose / draw outcomes. But if it's just win / lose what's the difference between laying the win or backing the loss? Should be same but the odds seem different for those two outcomes.
 
Yeah I understand what laying means. I'm trying to understand the distinction between laying a result and backing the alternative to win, and why the odds might be different between those.

Have looked at a few youtube vids but they mostly just explain the basics.
 
Back = Something will happen. For example, I bet on team A to win the game. If I win I win the odds of what I backed at.
Lay = Something will not happen. For example, I lay team A to win the game. If they draw or lose I win.

If you lose a back bet you only lose your stake you put in.

If you lose a lay bet you can lose more depending on what stake you've put on and at what odds. This is because your betting against other people and not the bookie. So if someone backed something at 5/1, someone who lays at 5/1 pays out the bet if the lay loses because you're then liable for the lay side.

Please don't start laying stuff without knowing what you're doing.
 
Thanks for the reply RobDogDog. That explanation was good. However, it still doesn't answer my original question - when there are only two possible outcomes (win or lose) why is there an odds discrepency between backing to win or laying to lose (the same result)?

I'm starting to think it's to do with the maths of the return from backing versus the liability of laying. But I'm not a seasoned bettor and my maths skills are not advanced, hence why I'm hoping someone can explain this (specific) question. I understand what laying means as opposed to backing.
 
You can cash out during a game, lay the draw then see how game progresses and then back or cash out as needed during play that's also assuming you can get your bets matched.

The key is to try 'green up' as much as possible though by both backing and laying, it can be useful in horse racing. Basically you can green up by betting on 80-90% of horses and almost guarantee a profit or at least reduce the odds greatly of making a loss. However you need significant bet amount for this to be worthwhile and then if you lose.....

It's just an extra option there's no 100% way to win.
 
Lartyconshayo said:
The odds are the prices they are because of the expected probability of the event happening with the efficiency of the market. You don't have to accept the win / lay odds on offer
Click to expand...

In an event with only two outcomes, A winning and B losing should be the exact same odds, probability wise. I'm assuming the numbers / money being bet on either is what is skewing what should theoretically otherwise be exactly the same odds.
 
It's just a market efficiency / liquidity 'issue'. The market is not totally efficient for example Betfair only allows odds to be offered at a set of discrete values (typically no more than 2 decimal places). So e.g. if you have back odds of 1.78 the lay odds should be 1+(1/(1-1.78)) = 2.282........... But you can't have odds to that precision, the closest is 2.28.

It's also because the odds on display are just those being offered. If there was an infinite supply of money, and instantaneous reactions to movements in the market, and zero commission, it would be much closer to the true equilibrium. But there isn't. So lets say the best odds on the market are 5.00. This would imply lay odds of 1.25. Let's say that is on offer right now. I then pile in and say you know what, I think the market is wrong, I'm going to offer 6.00 odds. This would imply lay odds of 1.2. But maybe nobody offers that immediately. It will take a small amount of time for the market to react and effectively decay this differential via arbitrage. This is then further impacted by commission, because that makes arbitrage less efficient, you can't just back the 6.00 and then lay at 1.21 and be quids in. Plus the liquidity problem, there simply may not be enough sufficient £££££ on offer in the market, dependent on what people have done.

The way to look at it is that the exchange is literally just people offering prices and like all markets it is not 100% efficient. There is nothing to stop people offering odds, maybe they chose back rather than lay because it easier for them to understand.

Finally as an aside, the real anomaly for me isn't the exchange, but traditional sportsbooks offering different odds for the same outcome. Have a look at what bookies offer for:

Draw no Bet vs Asian Handicap 0.0
Double Chance vs Asian Handicap +0.5

These are identical outcomes and hence should have identical odds at the same bookmaker. But for some reason they don't always! To me it is illogical that Asian market can give better odds.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom