Is win-only betting the way forward?
The case for an against turning your back on EW bets forever
As we all know, selecting value horseracing bets or winning soccer tips is a hard enough job in its own right.
Or, for that matter, try finding an outright golf winner in a 156-runner field…
It’s no easy task!
But the selection process aside…
As for the skill, experience and judgement it then takes to stake and back these horses/teams/players to the generate the maximum possible return…
This in itself is a whole extra level of expertise that the successful winning gambler needs to perfect.
Any supposedly “good set of results” can be rendered virtually ineffectual with poor staking and bad market selection and money placement. Whilst shrewd bank management, and a precise working knowledge of the available markets, can elevate a seemingly moderate set of figures to far out-perform others which, on paper, might at first glance look superior.
Now the thorny issue of staking (by that I mean, the size of stakes) is a whole Vietnam I’ll not get drawn into here and now!!
But one topic of conversation which did crop up the other day with a member of one of my services (Irish Cash Consortium) was that of win-only betting.
Which, as it implies, is simply backing each bet to win. Not each-way. Regardless of price.
You stake the same way on a 6/4 short shot, as a 16/1 poke, or some 33/1 rag.
On. The. Nose.
Fancy it?
The benefits of win-only betting
Yes, there are many who prefer to back “on the nose” and choose not to bother with each-way betting – at all.
So what are some of the benefits in backing win-only…
Quite simply, it can be more profitable in the long-term. Now there is a caveat to this, and quite a sizeable one, in that the outcome can be hugely affected by the style of bets and the distribution of results (for example, you could have a slew of big-priced EW placed winners, like in golf)…
But a typical set of figures, with prices liberally spread over an acceptable range, and with a commensurate strike rate.
In these examples, win-only betting can be found to be more profitable.
Remember, on a 16/1 chance, backed to win, you make a 16 point. Punted EW and your winnings are just 9.6 points.
That 33/1 chance… and it’s a 33 point gain against 19.8.
Yes, the counter-argument is that if any of the horses were to place, then the EW bet would return a profit, compared to a win-only loss…
But on these figures, there’s an appreciable difference if these returns were extrapolated over time.
The example I used to the member of ICC who raised the question, was to look at a 6-month period of the Irish racing service.
To advised stakes (win and EW), the service made 58.22 points profit between December 2022 and June 2023. However, backing every bet to win, and that return rose to 71.23 points.
Same bets. Same total stake.
The difference of an extra 13.01 points profit was simply down to backing all horses in the win-only market.
Certainly provides some food for thought.
Best thing, do what I do if you can, when faced with a set of figures for a betting tipster, advisory service or any other source… work out the numbers for both win/EW bets (if advised) as well as calculating them on just a win-only basis.
Make the comparison, and then you will know for sure.
But as a rule of thumb, very often you will find win-only betting is more profitable.
Another benefit, and one which drives this notion of extra profits, comes from the fact that win-only betting brings the exchanges into play, and often (not always), but often, you’ll find bigger prices in the win market on the likes of Betfair, than with your typical High Street firms.
Yes, you have to factor in commission rates, but there’s no doubt that taken as a broad average you’ll make better gains by placing your bets on Betfair (how long have I been beating this particular drum??).
Betting win-only can also, in certain cases, keep you below the radar of bookmakers when it comes to NOT getting your accounts restricted.
A secondary point to using the exchanges in a win-only capacity is that you’ll find more/most liquidity in the win market, than if you’re trying to get matched in either the place or EW markets.
So in terms of getting your money down, win-only betting can be a better way to operate.
Furthermore…
And this is more anecdotal, and will vary from member to member…
There is a widely held belief that backing certain bets – especially “thiever” EW bets at short prices – will draw you to the attention of a bookmaker’s surveillance team quicker than if you bet the win market.
And a final point, is that it just keeps things simple.
No need to agonise over how to bet certain horses, or teams/players. You just place your money to win. Job done.
Such a clarity of methodology can also be a benefit, more so when you’re following multiple services or betting strategies.
Drawbacks of a win-only approach to betting
From working in this industry for as long as I have, and dealing with clients on a daily basis for 30+ years, I know that win-only betting will only appeal to a microscopic percentage of punters.
Because there is one elephant-in-the-room sized issue with it…
The drop in strike rate.
Yes, there’s sometimes a value angle to argue in favour of placing certain bets each-way, as opposed to an all-out win betting method, but…
For most punters a huge reduction in the number of winners, or winning bets, runs contrary to their risk profile – no matter if, over the long-term, better results are achieved.
Because sadly, most backers do not have big enough betting banks, nor do they operate them well enough, to accommodate this style of bet placement. Neither do they have the nerve, commonly, to ride out a losing spell.
A typical losing spell which will only be longer when backing win-only.
Imagine backing a couple of double-figure bets, both finish in the places, but you back them win-only.
Two losers as opposed to two lots of stakes returned AND a small profit on top.
Viewed in isolation (and not seeing the bigger picture) this will seriously unnerve most backers.
I know from experience that a lot of members still baulk at a strike rate around 35% (which incidentally is pretty good, usually, depending on the average odds).
But this 35% covers “winning bets”. That’s win and EW.
Go win-only and your strike rate will probably halve overnight. Maybe it’ll drop even further.
Under such circumstances the vast majority of punters will throw in the towel.
“Forget long-term profits, Matthew, short-term we’ve just backed x losers”. This is what I’m told time and again.
Most punters will not switch to win-only betting because they cannot handle the longer losing runs, and lower strike rate, this style of betting automatically creates.
And whilst they might not outwardly admit this, it’s a stone-cold fact.
Which is why, by some considerable margin, this is the biggest stake through the heart when it comes to a win-only strategy.
It simply tests a punter’s patience (and betting bank) to a limit where it breaks.
Forget winning more over a 6 or 12-month period should you switch to win-only… if this way of punting makes you live on your wits, as your betting account consistently suffers greater volatility, and the number of winners drops markedly, then it’s a straight non-starter.
For example, in the 6-month study of ICC, it showed 100 winners/winning bets when using win and EW stakes… but just 54 winners when betting win-only.
A 46% drop in success, even if that drop in winners still generated a bigger overall return?!
But let me stress… such a dislike for lower strike rates isn’t necessarily a criticism or weakness.
Many backers will happily trade a little bit of top-line profit for a smoother ride. I get that, and fully accept that we’re all cut from different cloth.
And this is the beauty of betting…
We all hope to reach the same destination (making a profit), but how we get there is very often totally different from one punter to the next.
What’s important is that one way or another, we all get there!!
OPINION: The debate about win-only betting can be simplified into two viewpoints – more profit or more winners. And in this respect, there is no right/wrong answer. Because although all backers would say they want to win as much money as possible, the reality is that most amateur punters can’t handle, or prefer not to deal with, the demands that win-only betting puts on them, and their mental well-being (not to mention their betting banks). And that’s fine. But as gamblers who should always be open to discovering new betting strategies, whether we ultimately use them or not, we have to acknowledge the undoubted benefits of betting “on the nose”.
