Increasing liabilities


One of the hardest aspects of trading is knowing when it is right to increase your liabilities in the hope of turning a losing trade into a winning one or at worst a scratch trade. In pure gambling terms this is also referred to as "chasing losses". You know the story. £5 on the nag in the 2.30 at newmarket. It loses so next race you place £10 on a selection. It falls at the first fence. Third race you up the stakes to £20..........well, you get the picture.

Trading, however, is a different beast. During a football match, for example, you have 90 minutes in which you can manage your position. This may entail backing or laying in certain markets to either enhance your potential profits or conversely lessen your overall liaibilities. There is an element of control not available to you if you are a straight punter. (Bookmakers have got wise to this over the past couple of years and have followed the betting exchange model to include a cash out function during the game as an alternative option to doing nothing and hoping your initial selection comes good by the full time whistle. Ray Winstone`s east end gravely drawl in the Bet365 ads to "Cash Out - NOW" is now as immortal a phrase as Harold MacMillan`s "You`ve never had it so good").

So can chasing your losses be appropriate or correct even? The answer is based on a number of factors, arguably the most important being your risk v reward ratio. If you are comfortable enough with, say, a 100% loss, the next question you must factor into this decision is whether you would make the same selection & staking if you could re-run the game. In other words you believe your initial analysis was correct. The goals you were expecting but never came, the underdog taking a 0-3 lead by HT can be put down to an aberration of the well researched stats or just plain sod`s law. On another day you can pat yourself on the back and give the trusty crystal ball a congratulatory rub.

Other instances when increasing your liability can be, for example, where you backed certain scorelines and it is still 0-0 after 80 mins. You decide to LAY 0-0 with enough to cover your initial stake that is heading towards the grave. You have taken the view that a) in play stats (if that is your preferred criteria) suggest a goal is imminent or b) the increase in your liability - the risk - is cheap enough to warrant such a move.

Trading last night was slightly left field in that I chose an Over 2.5 acca in three Spanish games. The laibility was £40 with a maximum potential return of £152. Not, I might add, a common trade for me but there were some reasons why I felt there was some traction in such a selection. The technique I like to employ in these types of trades is to make in-play moves depending on when goals arrive. With staggered KO times this technique is quite easy to implement based on the right scenarios occuring.

The 1st leg - Villareal v Espanyol - got the trade off to the worst possible start as it ended 0-0. Even the late 0-0 lay @ 1.25 failed thus adding a further £5 red to the exisitng £40 liability. The 2nd match - Celta Vigo v Getafe - ended 1-1 thus extinguishing any chance of a profit. Now the 3d game - Levante v Real Sociedad - was, in my opinion, the most likely of the three selections to have goals. Therefore, I had it in my mind that I was going to trade this game with a separate strategy to the original acca in the hope of recouping the £45 already lost. Coincidentally, senior member Ian posted an interesting strategy on the same game not a million miles away from my own thoughts. 
I backed 2-1 / 1-2 / 2-2 and after Levante went 1-0 up added 3-0 @ 22.0. The total stake on this "second" trade was £20 effectively increasing my overall laibility on the night by an additional 50%.

Levante ended up 3-0 winners so Ian  (I did wish him all the luck in the world with his improvised, imaginative effort) and I came out ahead. See image below.

There is the rather unfortunate post script to this tale. Making a decision - not lightly taken - to increase liabilities is, as previously stated, a tricky matter. To ask fellow members in the chat room to follow you on this slippery path is even harder. So my apologies to those in the room for not posting this additional trade that on this occasion did get me out of a hole. 

thurs la liga





  • Comment Link Friday, 22 September 2017 23:38 Ian Pearson posted by Ian Pearson

    It was very pleasing outcome to the trade, and equally pleasing to see the game pan out in line with my reading of the market. I was just in the process of trading out of the CS market as Levante scored, which would have covered the two ht/ft bets, and removed the red from that market. Nonethess, three lays on the u2.5 market produced a nice, if slightly nail biting profit.

    Two important points emerge from this trade.

    As Bingo comments, there are times when going further in is entirely logical, and so it proved here as two lays at short odds on created a sizeable profit for a minimal increase in liability.

    The other relates to leading a trade. There are times when you might make a personal decision that you couldn't in all conscience recommend as part of a published trade, and that creates a bit of a dilemma. SImilarly, you might enter some trades on a more speculative basis than others, or at different staking levels. As a result, it bears repeating that all trades are not created equal. Some are more speculative than others and sometimes the initial exposure is not an indication of the maximum risk you are taking as the trade develops. Personally I will often look for a small profit on a first half trade knowing I may need to go much deeper into the market in the second half if it doesn't work out as planned. Recommending others do the same is not an easy thing to do.

  • Comment Link Friday, 22 September 2017 17:47 Steve posted by Steve

    I personally k
    like simple trades, where a goal to either side can give you a green screen. Laying at odds on is the way to go in my opinion, and I seriously believe this is what the more successful traders do. Yes, you get losses, but not big ones, so laying say U1.5 @1,7 and then the draw at around the same means that if no goals maximum loss is around 7pts, but one goal at least is a winner. Having said that I do enjoy following the trades put up, but I am not clever enough to work out for myself what the moves should be!

  • Comment Link Friday, 22 September 2017 13:06 Jon posted by Jon

    I followed Ian's trade on Levante and enjoyed the good natured banter about Bingo's "good luck" messaging. Reminded me of that scene in The Great Escape where the gestapo officer wishes two escapees good luck in English. This match turned out to be a great escape as well with the 3rd goal coming in the 85th minute! An interesting trade strategy that initially depended on 0-0 at HT -spoiled by Levante scoring in 45th minute - but clever use of the overs/unders market proved to be a trade saver and ended making a good profit. This is a great site and I have learned so much from the experienced traders who are all happy to share their knowledge.

Leave a comment

Latest Tweets

Popular Tags

Popular Posts


22 Mar 2019

Read 1124 times

Stats alerts

11 Aug 2018

Read 908 times

Bingo Bypass Handicap Hurdle

03 Jan 2018

Read 1000 times

Laying odds-on favourites

07 Dec 2017

Read 1069 times

Anatomy of a trade

05 Dec 2017

Read 31855 times

Pirlo the pearl

07 Nov 2017

Read 648 times

Increasing liabilities

22 Sep 2017

Read 1036 times

Parking the bus

18 Sep 2017

Read 797 times

Stay Tuned by subscribing to our Blog & Daily News.

We will not share your email.

Get in touch


Receive our Blog posts