Back vs Lay

ntrailz · **Joined:** Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:48 pm **Posts:** 25

Is it just me being new to this whole thing but laying just appears like an uphill struggle compared to backing.

You have to fork out more money when laying initially leaving you with a large liability from the start where at least when backing it appears to be much more clear where you are from the start.

If you lay at 2 and back at 4 you earn half your stake but if you back at 4 and lay at 2 you get your stake back which equates to double the ROI.

Am I way off here?

gundulf · **Joined:** Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:06 pm **Posts:** 75

The first thing to point out is that if no-one placed lay bets on bf your would not be able to back anything!

I think the whole concept of laying is alien to most people because really it means you are giving your money to someone else if your selection wins! Most traditional betting wins money if a selection wins, rather than losing - you've got to get your head round why you might want to lay something before you can judge if it's the right thing to do.

Take a football match. You might fancy the home team to win, but are doubtful of backing them too heavily because a draw is a distinct possibility. So instead of sitting the match out, if you are reasonably confident of a either a home win or draw why not consider laying the away side? That way you have two out of three outcomes working for you instead of one!

If a game is goalless in the 60 th minute you could look at backing 1-0 and 0-1 - but what happens if a team gets two quick goals? You've lost your stake(s). If you think 0-0 is unlikely by laying 0-0 you couldn't care less how many goals are scored as long as it's more than none! You've then got 16 outcomes running for you, and only one against!

Under 2.5 goals at the start of a game, under at 2.2 over at 1.8. Do you back under or lay over to make a few ticks? Back 20 at 2.2 and get an early goal you're probably looking at being upside down for quite a long time, lay over and you'll still be upside down but for less money and possibly for a shorter period of time.

Thems my thoughts - hope they help with the concepts!

adster · **Posted:** Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:20 pm

Yes, good reply gun. The reason the lay prices are so much higher is that you're covering 2 of the 3 outcomes in the match odds and in other markets your liabilities would be massive if for example you layed the 1-1 at odds of 7s. :shock:

But of course the odds are in your favour. Some traders prefer to lay, some prefer the safety of backing. You can get by with a smaller bank by backing.

As a new trader we would recommend sticking with backing and laying rather than laying and backing.

SilkBC · **Joined:** Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:37 am **Posts:** 13

ntrailz wrote:

You have to fork out more money when laying initially leaving you with a large liability from the start where at least when backing it appears to be much more clear where you are from the start.

Problem easily solved: Lay to a liability instead of a stake. For example, if you normally BACK for a $50 stake, then when you lay, LAY to a $50 liability. If you do that, then your risk is the same regardless of whether you are backing or laying.

-SilkBC

Back vs Lay

Who is online