Betting Approach- Narrow or Wide?

[Jeff P]

I have a question that I'd like to throw out there.

My question is this: Once you've finished handicapping a card (or cards) do you think that it is better to focus your betting by selecting what appears to be just a few of the stronger appearing money making races/situations each day and betting just those (narrow approach) as opposed to betting every potential money making race/situation that you can find (wider approach) each day?

Before answering, let me add in a stipulation: At the end of the day, you end up betting the same amount of money with either approach. For example, using the narrow approach, let's say you select four races and bet $100.00 in each race for a total of $400.00. For the wider approach, let's say you bet $20.00 in 20 races for a total of $400.00.

Also, what if your win rate and roi is slightly higher in the races you would select for betting using the narrow approach?

The answers, I suspect, might relate to something called the law of large numbers. I'd be very interested in what the more math inclined on this board think and have to say.

[BIG RED]

If your ROI is much better on the 'narrow' approach, call me Mr. Narrow!

[dav4463]

I look at an entire card. After handicapping all the races, I then label my top three races as A,B, and C. Those are my main races that get the most money. However, I keep on the lookout for a major opportunity that may arise in another race. Also, I usually label one or more races as unplayable and I don't even look at those once I get to the track. Overall, I do better with my A and B races, but I occasionally find a play elsewhere (usually a longshot play) that makes my month if I hit.

[ranchwest]

I believe in the narrow approach. Now, if I could just practice it better.

Horse racing is about advantage. Wait until you have one.

[Dick Schmidt]

Jeff,

Most everyone believes in the Narrow approach. Almost everyone on this board will tell you to concentrate on your best races and forget the rest. Just about every handicapping guru will tell you the same. They tell stories of guys who only make one or two bets a month, but crush big winners when the stars are aligned just right.

Well, since "everyone" thinks this is the way to bet, I naturally do just the opposite. When I'm really cranked up and there are lots of tracks on offer, I play as many as 100 races a day. I download the race information the night before, but don't do any handicapping until 10 minutes before the first race. I enter scratches as I go and handicap each race in 3 to 5 minutes. I mostly bet to win and mostly bet 2 horses per race, though sometimes 3 and sometimes just one depending on my numbers. I usually flat bet as I don't have time to do anything else. My usual level is about $100 a race, which can add up if you play a lot. About the only races I pass are those with solid, low priced favorites.

I find that I am a fair handicapper of horses, but a bad handicapper of myself. I never know which races are "strong" and which are "weak." So I play them all and let the chips fall as they will. I don't necessarily recommend this style of play to anyone else, but it puts more dollars in my pocket than any other I have tried. It's tiring to do, but removes a lot of stress, especially since I rarely have time to watch any of the races I bet. No race is that important, and I never suffer a "tough beat" (or at least I don't know about them). At the end of the day, E-Horse tells me how I've done.

Works for me.

Dick

Live each day as if it were a carrier landing - if you can walk away from it - be joyous!

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Well, since "everyone" thinks this is the way to bet, I naturally do just the opposite. When I'm really cranked up and there are lots of tracks on offer, I play as many as 100 races a day. I download the race information the night before, but don't do any handicapping until 10 minutes before the first race. I enter scratches as I go and handicap each race in 3 to 5 minutes.
I don't necessarily recommend this style of play to anyone else, but it puts more dollars in my pocket than any other I have tried. It's tiring to do, but removes a lot of stress, especially since I rarely have time to watch any of the races I bet.

FINALLY!

A ray of hope has appeared

[GameTheory]

I like this kind of approach too. If what you do works, and you can manage to make 100 or more bets a day; you're rarely have a losing day -- you can get your losing streaks over with in a couple of hours. You can also make your individual bets relatively small so there is almost no stress in making them but still bet a lot by the end of the day so you're making decent money.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by BIG RED
If your ROI is much better on the 'narrow' approach, call me Mr. Narrow!


ROI is not the same thing as profit. You'll have a higher ROI with a narrow approach (or else why be narrow?), but you might be able to make more actual dollars with the wide approach as long as you still maintain some advantage because you're churning your money more.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by GameTheory
ROI is not the same thing as profit. You'll have a higher ROI with a narrow approach (or else why be narrow?), but you might be able to make more actual dollars with the wide approach as long as you still maintain some advantage because you're churning your money more.

I see your point but the OP stated as a precondition that the total amount bet would be the same.

[GameTheory]

Yeah, sure, but let's face it:

The reason to be narrow is to be selective and increase ROI -- you wouldn't limit yourself just for the hell of it. There are two reasons for the wide approach: to get more bankroll churn, or to spread your risk (lower bet size) over more individual bets. In the second case, if you don't increase the overall amount bet; it really is just a comfort level question. You'll be making less ROI and less overall profit, so the only reason to do that is maybe to smooth out losing streaks; but then isn't that what being selective is supposed to do?

So I think the real compelling reason to "go wide" (if you can) is because you're gonna make more money, even if the ROI is lower. If the choice is between:

narrow: more ROI, more profit
wide: less ROI, less profit

then it's a no-brainer, eh?

[Blind Pursuit]

Game Theory is right (as usual), but Dick Schmidt has a point (as usual).

This is one of those questions that really can't be answered in the real world because you can't be sure what else will change if you change the narrow/wide parameter. Say Dick has a certain win%, average mutuel, avg. bet size, ROI. Now even if "going narrow" is the logical move, you can't just say that Dick would be better off narrowing his bets. Going narrow for Dick would completely change his whole approach to the game, and likely change all the other factors as a result.

There's a name for this in quantum mechanics (uncertainty principle, maybe?).

[Jeff P]

My original question, although I may not have stated it as such, hints at something called Element of Ruin. Element of Ruin is the perentage chance that your bankroll will tap out before it can grow. The higher the percentage of bankroll bet on each individual event the higher the element of ruin. The converse is also true. The lower the percentage of bankroll bet on each individual event the lower the element of ruin.

If I take the narrow approach I feel somewhat comfortable (from an element of ruin standpoint) betting roughly two percent of my bankroll on each event. I base this on the historical hit rate and average win mutuel for the type of plays that I am making.

When taking a wider approach I only feel comfortable (again, from an element of ruin standpoint) betting approximately one half of one percent of my bankroll on each event. Again, I base this decision on the lower historical hit rate and average win mutuel for the type of plays that I am making using this approach.

The law of large numbers, if I understand it correctly, as applied to betting on individual events, goes something like this: The greater the number of individual events the greater the percentage chance that a player has of having the true mathematical percentages apply to his or her overall profit or loss. Example- if you are playing roulette where the layout has a zero and a double zero the house has a 5.26 percent edge on each and every bet made. In the short run a player can get lucky and win. But as the player increases the number of individual events played the law of large numbers begins to take effect. After enough events are played- once the player has gotten into the long run- the player becomes substantially and permanently behind. Thats the premise upon which all casinos operate.

The same thing also applies to horseracing. Hopefully, as enlightened horseplayers, we have found some kind of an edge. If a player with a true edge plays enough events to get into the long run he will find himself substantially and permanently ahead.

Using the narrow approach I am making fewer plays but each play carries a higher edge. With the wide approach I make more plays but each play carries a lower edge.

My dilemna is somehow trying to find the right balance between the two.

[Exactaman]

Why balance? If you are betting the same amount, the higher edge is the way to go.

[Jeff P]

Why balance? If you are betting the same amount, the higher edge is the way to go.

What's wrong with the narrow approach?
With the narrow approach, because there are fewer plays, it takes a greater number of days, to get into the long run.

What's wrong with the wide approach?
For me it's a time and effort consideration. Focusing my betting on my best plays makes better use of my time.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by Jeff P
What's wrong with the narrow approach?
With the narrow approach, because there are fewer plays, it takes a greater number of days, to get into the long run.



I don't get it. You originally pointed out the amount bet would be the same per day. In this case the amount of plays would be greater, but not the amount of days.

[Jeff P]

I don't get it. You originally pointed out the amount bet would be the same per day. In this case the amount of plays would be greater, but not the amount of days.

Exactaman,

Yes, the amount bet per day is the same with both approaches. There are fewer plays with the narrow approach. Therefore it takes more days to get enough plays to get into the long run. There are more plays with the wide approach. Therefore you get into the long run much sooner in terms of calendar days because you are making more plays.

I don't know if there is a right answer. Just want to know how others confront the question if at all.

[shanta]

i have no real idea ahead of time which races i am gonna hit. i use the wide ,wider,widest approach. to average my play out if i am wagering 4 tracks in a day(and night) i will bet 20 races. i definately try to wager on 5 races per card at least. i bet 2 horses to win in each race. I am not going to lose my bankroll so i don't worry about that. i definately do have losing days though. thats for sure. Richie

[raybo]

As a new poster in this forum I'll throw my 2 cents in and then duck (LOL)! I think that ,for the most part, it depends on the type of wager you place. If you bet win, place, show,quinella type bets that, as a general rule, have lower payouts per dollar bet then I believe you must determine what race types and race conditions you excel at and concentrate on those primarily. Also, when you do make a play you should play only those races that will have a return that will overcome your losses. However, if you play the exotics, especially superfectas as I do, then you can adopt a wider method. The challenge in this type of wagering lies in finding the right balance between ticket costs and coverage on the place, show, and 4th rows. The most important limiting factor that will determine whether I play a race or not is "available data". I will not play races where there is not enough data on the horses to allow at least a fairly good idea of each horse's capability. This doesn't mean I don't play maiden races because I do and they are some of the most profitable investments, but maiden races must "qualify" first. Again, this is only my opinion based on my experience and knowledge.

[GameTheory]

Jeff --

If you use the wide approach, you should indeed bet less per race. But if you don't end up betting more actual dollars PER WHATEVER (day, week, month) then you're missing the real benefits of a wider approach -- more churn which allows you to make a greater profit than with the narrow approach (albeit with a lower ROI) AND the chance to grow your bankroll faster and therefore make larger bets sooner, assuming that you would raise your bet size at some point of bankroll growth.

If you're looking for how to balance the two, then calculate your edge from a Kelly criterion perspective using a day/week/whatever as a unit (as the whole day were a single bet). Then your risk vs. reward will be balanced, assuming your performance estimates are more or less correct.

I'm short on time at the moment, but I can run through an example later if you don't get what I'm saying...

[shanta]

welcome to the board raybo!
Richie:)

[raybo]

:) Shanta,

Thanks for the welcome. I enjoy discussing the "ponies" with intelligent people.