would you rather bet 1 horse with a 50% chance of winning or 5 horses, each with a 10

[formula_2002]

would you rather bet 1 horse with a 50% chance of winning or 5 horses, each with a 10% chance of winning?
odds are inaccordance with their chance of winning

IF YOUR BET WINS:
A $1 bet on the 50% horse nets $1
A $1 bet on each of 2 horseS with a 25% chance of winning nets $1.
A $1 bet on each of 3 horses with a .167 chance of winning nets $2
A $1 bet on each of 4 horses with a .125 chance of winning nets $3
A $1 bet on each of 5 horses with a .10 chance of winning nets $4 :)

[therussmeister]

Would you rather bet $5 on a horse with a 50% chance of winning, or $1 each on five horses with a 10% chance of winning?

[OTM Al]

would you rather bet 1 horse with a 50% chance of winning or 5 horses, each with a 10% chance of winning?
odds are inaccordance with their chance of winning

IF YOUR BET WINS:
A $1 bet on the 50% horse nets $1
A $1 bet on each of 2 horseS with a 25% chance of winning nets $1.
A $1 bet on each of 3 horses with a .167 chance of winning nets $2
A $1 bet on each of 4 horses with a .125 chance of winning nets $3
A $1 bet on each of 5 horses with a .10 chance of winning nets $4 :)

Doesn't "net" anything. Those are expected payoffs if, and only if, the odds actually match the probabilities of winning. Can we know for sure they do?

[formula_2002]

A $1 bet on the 50% horse nets $1
A $1 bet on each of 2 horses with a 25% horses nets $1.
A $1 bet on each of 3 horses with a .167 chance of winning nets $2
A $1 bet on each of 4 horses with a .125 chance of winning nets $3
A $1 bet on each of 5 horses with a .10 chance of winning nets $4

A $1 BET ON 100 HORSES WITH A .005 CHANCE OF WINNING NETS $99

The 1 horse bet returns 100% when winning,
The 2 horse bet returns 50% when winning
The 3 returns 66%
The 4 returns 75%
The 5 returns 90%
And the 100 returns 99%

So if several horses qualify for a bet, just bet one of them

[OTM Al]

No it doesn't.

[formula_2002]

No it doesn't.

HOW COME?

[OTM Al]

HOW COME?

Because you don't know the difference between a net payoff and an expected payoff and further the difference between the public odds and the actual probability of winning.

[shouldacoulda]

would you rather bet 1 horse with a 50% chance of winning or 5 horses, each with a 10% chance of winning?
odds are inaccordance with their chance of winning

IF YOUR BET WINS:
A $1 bet on the 50% horse nets $1
A $1 bet on each of 2 horseS with a 25% chance of winning nets $1.
A $1 bet on each of 3 horses with a .167 chance of winning nets $2
A $1 bet on each of 4 horses with a .125 chance of winning nets $3
A $1 bet on each of 5 horses with a .10 chance of winning nets $4 :)

If I bet 5 horses with a 10% chance of winning, doesn't that still add up to 50%? :eek:

[OTM Al]

If I bet 5 horses with a 10% chance of winning, doesn't that still add up to 50%? :eek:

If its in the same race yes, but says nothing about payoff, expected or otherwise. His example appears to be across races as well though, which changes things a bit.

[davew]

you are saying chances of cashing but not what you are cashing

you are missing enough that no one understands what you are asking or saying


a 50% cash nets $1 - does that mean you get $3 back half the time when betting $1?


5 10% winners bet nets $4 - does that mean half the time you are going to get $14 when betting $1 on each of 5 10% probabilities


cashing and netting are different - the netting depends on pay-offs

[thoroughbred]

If I bet 5 horses with a 10% chance of winning, doesn't that still add up to 50%? :eek:

If this were the correct way of calculating, then betting 10 horses with each having a 10% of winning would add up to a sure thing of 100%. Clearly this isn't so as a race could have 12 or more horses.

[oddsfellow]

There is also a 90% chance the horse will lose in each race. So assuming you place 100% of your bank on the outcome (20% x 5 wagers or 100% x 1 wager) then the chance of ruin for the one bet is 50%. The chance of ruin for the other series of bets is 0.9x0.9x0.9x0.9x0.9=0.59 or 59% meaning you are more likely to go bust than just backing one horse.

[formula_2002]

Because you don't know the difference between a net payoff and an expected payoff and further the difference between the public odds and the actual probability of winning.

And if you new all those things, would you bet more than one horse if your only goal was to get the best return on your dollar?

[OTM Al]

And if you new all those things, would you bet more than one horse if your only goal was to get the best return on your dollar?

If you knew what these things were, you wouldn't need to ask this question. I suggest you look them up and then think about what that answer should be.

[pondman]

Question makes no sense. I've got the confidence to pick a horse with a 40% chance, but I'm expecting at least a 500% net return or I'll pass.

[formula_2002]

If you knew what these things were, you wouldn't need to ask this question. I suggest you look them up and then think about what that answer should be.

To obtain maximum long term returns, do you think it's wise to bet more than one horse in a race?

[Red Knave]

To obtain maximum long term returns, do you think it's wise to bet more than one horse in a race?
Not to speak for Al but, yes, I believe that it is wise. But after saying that, you have to understand that by betting more than 1 horse per race I cash more often and I can increase my bankroll faster which means my wager size can also increase. My ROI takes a hit for sure, but my total bankroll is larger, faster.

I credit Dick Schmidt with teaching me the phrase "velocity of money".

[OTM Al]

Not to speak for Al but, yes, I believe that it is wise. But after saying that, you have to understand that by betting more than 1 horse per race I cash more often and I can increase my bankroll faster which means my wager size can also increase. My ROI takes a hit for sure, but my total bankroll is larger, faster.

I credit Dick Schmidt with teaching me the phrase "velocity of money".

Got no problem betting more than 1 to win in a race. Have done it myself when hedging a P3 to create an almost no-lose senario. That's not what I was objecting to here however.

[badcompany]

To obtain maximum long term returns, do you think it's wise to bet more than one horse in a race?

No.

The greatest expected value is in betting the horse that's the biggest overlay.

[formula_2002]

Not to speak for Al but, yes, I believe that it is wise. But after saying that, you have to understand that by betting more than 1 horse per race I cash more often and I can increase my bankroll faster which means my wager size can also increase. My ROI takes a hit for sure, but my total bankroll is larger, faster.
I credit Dick Schmidt with teaching me the phrase "velocity of money".
:eek: show me math

[formula_2002]

No.

The greatest expected value is in betting the horse that's the biggest overlay.
That makes two of us!

[Red Knave]

No.

The greatest expected value is in betting the horse that's the biggest overlay.That makes two of us!
:confused:
Show me the math.

[formula_2002]

:confused:
Show me the math.
see note #4.. would I lie? :)

[badcompany]

Let's say you have a race in which two horses are 6-1, but you believe that one of those horses should be 2-1; the other 1-1.

If you bet $4 on the latter, after 6 races the horse will have won three times. So, you collect $28 three times and lose $4 three times: 84 - 12= 72

Doing the same on the former: win twice, lose four times: 56 - 16= 40.

Now, if you bet $2 on both for the six races:

42 - 6 = 34, 28 - 8 = 20: 34 + 20 = 54

72>54

[jk3521]

would you rather bet 1 horse with a 50% chance of winning or 5 horses, each with a 10% chance of winning?
:)
'scuse me, but after putting in my time to handicap a horse race, I should be thinking in my mind that I have a better than 50/50 chance of cashing or I would skip the race. Right or wrong, in my mind I bet the horse because I think 100% I made the right decision.. More times than not i am 100% wrong

[Red Knave]

Let's say you have a race in which two horses are 6-1, but you believe that one of those horses should be 2-1; the other 1-1.

If you bet $4 on the latter, after 6 races the horse will have won three times. So, you collect $28 three times and lose $4 three times: 84 - 12= 72

Doing the same on the former: win twice, lose four times: 56 - 16= 40.

Now, if you bet $2 on both for the six races:

42 - 6 = 34, 28 - 8 = 20: 34 + 20 = 54

72>54

Of course, in this case you are correct (even though your math is off), but why would you bet $4 per horse in 1 case and only $2 per horse in the other?
In each case total wagers are 6 * $4 = $24, total return is $84 in the first case for a net of $60, not $72. In the second it's the same $24 bet with $70 returned for a net of $46.
By betting two horses your chances of cashing are very much higher so you wouldn't bet the same amount in both situations. At least, not if you truly believe your analysis of the situation. In your first example you have a 50% chance to cash, in the second you have an over 80% chance to cash. If you were willing to bet $4 in one case why wouldn't you bet $6 or even $8 in the other case? And I sure wouldn't flat bet those 6 races but let's say that you did.
If we bet $4 on the larger overlay and $2 on the other overlay we get 3 cashes of $28 plus 2 cashes of $14 for a total return of $84 + $28 = $112. We have wagered $36 for so our net is $76.
In your first case I calculate your ROI as 60/24 = 2.50, in the second it's 46/24 = 1.92. In my 3rd case it's 76/36 = 2.11 but I wind up with a larger bankroll.

This is what I was alluding to when I challenged formula_2002 (who I know would not lie to me ;) ) to show me his math. I contend that I can bet multiple horses in each race (as long as they are overlaid) using some type of percentage of bankroll method and come out with a higher total dollar return because my bankroll will increase faster and I can consequently put more of it at risk per horse per race. My ROI will (may) be lower but if every horse is an overlay I can bet them all and I will cash more often and my bankroll will increase more quickly and my percentage of that bankroll will generate a larger bet etc. to infinity. And beyond.
That's all I'm saying.

:)

[badcompany]

Red,

I get what you're saying. By cashing more often you'll build your roll faster, but, if this the case shouldn't you only be betting multiple horses to show, as this would be the way to cash the most tickets?

[Red Knave]

Red,

I get what you're saying. By cashing more often you'll build your roll faster, but, if this the case shouldn't you only be betting multiple horses to show, as this would be the way to cash the most tickets?
It's not just cashing tickets, it's cashing tickets on overlays.
If I had any idea whether certain horses were overlaid to show, maybe I would. I don't have the tools to figure that out and I don't think it happens much with breakage and splitting the pool 3 ways.

And I know you're just yanking my chain. ;)

[formula_2002]

Let's say you have a race in which two horses are 6-1, but you believe that one of those horses should be 2-1; the other 1-1.

If you bet $4 on the latter, after 6 races the horse will have won three times. So, you collect $28 three times and lose $4 three times: 84 - 12= 72

Doing the same on the former: win twice, lose four times: 56 - 16= 40.

Now, if you bet $2 on both for the six races:

42 - 6 = 34, 28 - 8 = 20: 34 + 20 = 54

72>54
The single bet on the 2-1 horse returns a 1.9 roi,
The single bet on the 1-1 horse returns a 3.0 roi.
Betting both returns a 2.49 roi
So would you be happier with say 3 million dollars or 2.49 million😂.
It's all about "utility"

[badcompany]

It's not just cashing tickets, it's cashing tickets on overlays.
If I had any idea whether certain horses were overlaid to show, maybe I would. I don't have the tools to figure that out and I don't think it happens much with breakage and splitting the pool 3 ways.

And I know you're just yanking my chain. ;)

I wouldn't yank your chain. I respect my elders.;)

That said, your betting style seems to attempt to avoid long losing streaks, by cashing more regularly.

Wouldn't this lead you to avoid exotic wagers where the hit rate is lower?

I've always been the "Big Score" type of bettor/trader. I confess it's a style that can lead to spewing out long strings of expletives when in the midst of one of those losing streaks.

[badcompany]

The single bet on the 2-1 horse returns a 1.9 roi,
The single bet on the 1-1 horse returns a 3.0 roi.
Betting both returns a 2.49 roi
So would you be happier with say 3 million dollars or 2.49 million��.
It's all about "utility"

What do you think about Red's assertion that the more frequent cashes will allow you to bump up your bets and make up for the decreased roi?

[thaskalos]

What do you think about Red's assertion that the more frequent cashes will allow you to bump up your bets and make up for the decreased roi?

The more frequent cashes mean that you can get by on a smaller bankroll...which is an edge in itself.

The smaller bankroll doubles more rapidly...and leads to larger wagers sooner.

[formula_2002]

What do you think about Red's assertion that the more frequent cashes will allow you to bump up your bets and make up for the decreased roi?

It works if you are happy with it.
I can't pick one horse for a profit, let alone two

[Red Knave]

I wouldn't yank your chain. I respect my elders.;)
Ouch! :p

That said, your betting style seems to attempt to avoid long losing streaks, by cashing more regularly.
Wouldn't this lead you to avoid exotic wagers where the hit rate is lower?

I don't avoid exotics, I just bet less on them and I only bet exactas. That's actually how I worked out how to pick my contenders. I started out looking for a way to find the place horse.

I've always been the "Big Score" type of bettor/trader. I confess it's a style that can lead to spewing out long strings of expletives when in the midst of one of those losing streaks.
I don't have the temperament for that (the long losing streaks that is ;) ). I get the odd big score but never the king-maker ones, or at least not so far.

[BlueShoe]

Lets apply this to a real life situation that we all encounter, the horizontal exotics. Say we are alive in the last leg of a pick-3 or pick-4. The question now is would it be best to have a very solid single or to have spread the race in a large field and have 5 going for you? My answer, is by far, the solid single. If I have to use five runners, it means that I really do not have a handle on the race and am pretty much guessing. Numerous times over the years have been in this situation and have lost the race that I have spread. On the other hand, having 5 $1 tickets to a single that you feel very good about certainly trumps having 5 $1 live tickets each to a different horse in a race that is fuzzy and difficult.

[thaskalos]

Lets apply this to a real life situation that we all encounter, the horizontal exotics. Say we are alive in the last leg of a pick-3 or pick-4. The question now is would it be best to have a very solid single or to have spread the race in a large field and have 5 going for you? My answer, is by far, the solid single. If I have to use five runners, it means that I really do not have a handle on the race and am pretty much guessing. Numerous times over the years have been in this situation and have lost the race that I have spread. On the other hand, having 5 $1 tickets to a single that you feel very good about certainly trumps having 5 $1 live tickets each to a different horse in a race that is fuzzy and difficult.
The problem with the pick-3 and the pick-4 is that you are not likely to find a solid single horse in every leg. You are going to have to spread somewhere down the line.

The juicy pick-4 payoffs that we drool over are not triggered by those "solid single horses" you speak of.

[pondman]

On the other hand, having 5 $1 tickets to a single that you feel very good about certainly trumps having 5 $1 live tickets each to a different horse in a race that is fuzzy and difficult.


It's going to depend on the scenario and the track.

The longer the horizontal and the larger the fields, the larger the kitchen sink needs to be. The bankroll doesn't begin to grow for the average player until playing horses over the $11 fence. It will only take one 8-5 horse (overtime) to make your day become nickle and dimes. The most successful horizontal players I know, will cash many tickets. Many will be marginal and many times at a loss. But he'll cash a couple big tickets a week.

Single means different things to different people. To me a single is a 30-1 shot, with a 40% chance to win. I'd play it on the nose for $300. I sometimes consider vertical plays, but the horizontal dips too far into the bankroll for me.

In context of the playing 2 horses. I've been successful playing the type of horses I play if 2 horses are entered. But it's a rare event. Maybe a dozen times a year do I play 2 horses in race.