$100 bankroll

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Can you win with a $100 bankroll? What changes would you make in your regular routine if you had $100 to wager with as if it was your last bankroll?

I would think that wagering with the constraints of this short betting fund would have to bring out the ultimate in discipline, patience and self control in order to grow this fund into a larger amount and avoid busting out.

Again, it is most obvious that the serial exotic wagers Pick6, Super's etc. would be unplayable.

imo a real tough player can grow this short fund if his handicapping skills and his psychological skills were in order, but it is a real acid test. Any opinions?

Thanks in advance

[thaskalos]

In my opinion, nothing but $2 win wagers could be supported by a $100 bankroll.

Even betting exactas with a $1 base would have to be considered over-betting with only a bankroll of that size.

[TheEdge07]

Can you win with a $100 bankroll? What changes would you make in your regular routine if you had $100 to wager with as if it was your last bankroll?

I would think that wagering with the constraints of this short betting fund would have to bring out the ultimate in discipline, patience and self control in order to grow this fund into a larger amount and avoid busting out.

Again, it is most obvious that the serial exotic wagers Pick6, Super's etc. would be unplayable.

imo a real tough player can grow this short fund if his handicapping skills and his psychological skills were in order, but it is a real acid test. Any opinions?

Thanks in advance

Bet less and set odds for value..

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

$2 win bets representing 2% of the bankroll. I would think value would be your best friend with these $2 wagers.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Bet less and set odds for value..



I would agree.

[thaskalos]

$2 win bets representing 2% of the bankroll. I would think value would be your best friend with these $2 wagers.

I'm not sure I understand you; "value" is our best friend with any type of bet.

[DeltaLover]

Can you win with a $100 bankroll?

There is nothing that can prove the opposite. As much as a dislike stories and red boarding, I remember several times that I managed to parlay my last few hundred in my account to several thousands in a matter of three to four races.

Of course, we need to clarify that such a small amount can hardly be considered a bankroll. Either if you want to accept it or not, when you reach such a low level, you are essentially broke, something that you need to realize and adjust accordingly, selecting an aggressive spot where you are going to risk it all, so you will enter the action again or go home until you manage to recover and try again.

As far as betting selection, I think at this level, the best you can do is to follow a very simple execution path, avoiding the complexity of long gimmicks. You should stay as far as possible of favorites, trying to spot a near natural odds starter, that you will either bet straight to win or if you can eliminate one of the top choices, try to use it in the two top spots of the exacta, with the intention of getting at least 4-1 on your total bet.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I'm not sure I understand you; "value" is our best friend with any type of bet.

Great point Thask that you would NEVER sacrifice the value. Now would you limit yourself to a daily stop loss of a certain amount of losing races so as to protect against a real bad day when the percentages are against you?

[wisconsin]

How about being creative, if you have patience. I would look for 10 parlays to play $10 apiece. 2 10-1 shots gets you $1000 in a hurry.

This is not to say it is an easy task, but just like football crunch time, call your best play (your best betting situations). Use only the races or situations you are good at.

[thaskalos]

Great point Thask that you would NEVER sacrifice the value. Now would you limit yourself to a daily stop loss of a certain amount of losing races so as to protect against a real bad day when the percentages are against you?

Having a "real bad day" is not the same as having the "percentages against you". You are going to have real bad days even when the percentages are WITH you.

Setting a daily stop loss offers no real protection to your bankroll...unless you panic when you suffer a string of losses and start betting wildly in order to recoup. Keep your cool and make the right bets...and don't worry about setting a daily loss limit.

You are cutting it close with a $100 bankroll, and it will surely test your patience and your discipline...but one thing is certain:

If you can't win with $2 win bets...then you won't be able to win with larger bets either.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

How about being creative, if you have patience. I would look for 10 parlays to play $10 apiece. 2 10-1 shots gets you $1000 in a hurry.

This is not to say it is an easy task, but just like football crunch time, call your best play (your best betting situations). Use only the races or situations you are good at.

Interesting point. I would say that there are a number of different methods and individual preferences that could add up to building this meager starting fund. The real question is what is the best....maybe a combination of conservative wagers with the occasional big shot for the parlay of two longer priced selections. All of this open for discussion.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Having a "real bad day" is not the same as having the "percentages against you". You are going to have real bad days even when the percentages are WITH you.

Setting a daily stop loss offers no real protection to your bankroll...unless you panic when you suffer a string of losses and start betting wildly in order to recoup. Keep your cool and make the right bets...and don't worry about setting a daily loss limit.

You are cutting it close with a $100 bankroll, and it will surely test your patience and your discipline...but one thing is certain:

If you can't win with $2 win bets...then you won't be able to win with larger bets either.

Good points. I see the daily stop loss suggestion is especially for the players with no discipline (AND WITH THIS FLAW THEY HAVE ZERO CHANCE OF SUCCESS LONG TERM ANYWAY)

[MJC922]

If it's my last bankroll, lose it or die, then obviously minimum bet sizes for a very long time. On the other hand if it's a $100 today and not another $100 in sight until next month or something then I would suggest playing the way you normally do but with a reduced bet size. For me personally with small money I've always been out to grow it quickly, a simple strategy might be 2 x 4 or 3 x 3 in the opening double and if you survive that and are ahead $20 at some point I would be looking to snipe that $20 on to a very solid horse in the 2-1 or 5-2 range. If you survive that too you're on the way up, maybe half of the profit on another solid horse, with a little luck you have it doubled by now and at the end of the day life is good, start thinking about tomorrow. Sorry if I misunderstood the question but lose it or die is too hypothetical for me to process. :)

[proximity]

Can you win with a $100 bankroll?

would i be getting any rebates?

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

MJ the point of discussion is the total package needed to grow this small bank into a larger one over the long term until a more reasonable bank amount is achieved. It involves handicapping and psychological principles that can prove quite imposing for the majority of horseplayers.

[ManU918]

Is this $100 bankoll for one race, one day, one week, one month, the rest of your life?

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

would i be getting any rebates?

LOL no rebates! LOL

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Is this $100 bankoll for one race, one day, one week, one month, the rest of your life?

The bankroll is assumed that it is your last chance to gamble on the horses- no additional funding.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

At this point it is interesting to note that while most would favor a very conservative approach to building the bank, others are true shooters who want to go out with a blast looking to make a quick score. hey it shows to each his own and different temperaments equal different approaches.

[ManU918]

The bankroll is assumed that it is your last chance to gamble on the horses- no additional funding.

Assuming you are getting the PP's for free, I would study as many cards until I found a horse I loved and go for the gusto. No way am I going to sit around and bet $2 a race. If I lose oh well then I'm done but if I win now I have a bankroll that is $300 or $400 which gives you a lot more room to work with.

[MJC922]

MJ the point of discussion is the total package needed to grow this small bank into a larger one over the long term until a more reasonable bank amount is achieved. It involves handicapping and psychological principles that can prove quite imposing for the majority of horseplayers.

I guess that's that part I don't understand about the hypothetical, because if the aim is to grow it and never lose it, you would use the same approach no matter how much you're working with $100 or $10,000. So if that's the case why is the starting amount relevant?

[thaskalos]

At this point it is interesting to note that while most would favor a very conservative approach to building the bank, others are true shooters who want to go out with a blast looking to make a quick score. hey it shows to each his own and different temperaments equal different approaches.

These "true shooters" are assuming that there would be additional funding somewhere down the line if the original $100 is lost.

If they knew that there would be no additional funds...then I think that they would change their tune real fast. :)

[Light]

If you grow a $100 bankroll at 2% per day compounded it will be $1,000 in 4 months.That's like 9-1 odds. In four months from that you will have $10,000.At the end of a year you will have $100,000.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I guess that's that part I don't understand about the hypothetical, because if the aim is to grow it and never lose it, you would use the same approach no matter how much you're working with $100 or $10,000. So if that's the case why is the starting amount relevant?

The point of a meager bankroll with no added money puts the bettor in a position to use greater psychological skills in order to survive until the bank has a chance to grow. I guess what I am trying to impute is the urgency for discipline with the life or death of a last chance bankroll.

[therussmeister]

I guess that's that part I don't understand about the hypothetical, because if the aim is to grow it and never lose it, you would use the same approach no matter how much you're working with $100 or $10,000. So if that's the case why is the starting amount relevant?
The starting amount is relevant because there are such things as minimum bet sizes. That's why Thask suggested win bets instead of exactas. If there were such things as dime exactas, one could play exactas with a $100 bankroll.

[lamboguy]

if you start with $100 and you are any good at this i am going to give you the perfect system.

start with a $20 bet and bet $2.20 show horses at Mountain, Charlietown, Prarrie Meadow's and Arapahoe. if you hit 10 in a row, increase your bet to $30, if you hit another 10 in a row increase up to $50, if you hit 10 more in a row, move your wager up to $130, hit another 10 in a row and go to $210. if you lose one bet go back 2 spaces, if you don't have enough spaces go all the way back to $20. $210 was the furthest that i have ever made it to. if you get that far, get hold of me and i will help you with your next move. this system does not work on $2.10 so don't waste your time. if you are real good at this you will win.
most people aren't though.

[thaskalos]

I guess that's that part I don't understand about the hypothetical, because if the aim is to grow it and never lose it, you would use the same approach no matter how much you're working with $100 or $10,000. So if that's the case why is the starting amount relevant?

Well...I think we can all agree that there is a great deal of difference between a $100 and a $10,000 bankroll...even hypothetically speaking.

The $100 bankroll really restricts your wagering options...and that's not a good thing.

Ideally...you would want a starting bankroll which would allow you to venture into at least the "conservative" exotics wagers as well.

[Robert Fischer]

Can you win with a $100 bankroll? What changes would you make in your regular routine if you had $100 to wager with as if it was your last bankroll?

I would think that wagering with the constraints of this short betting fund would have to bring out the ultimate in discipline, patience and self control in order to grow this fund into a larger amount and avoid busting out.

Again, it is most obvious that the serial exotic wagers Pick6, Super's etc. would be unplayable.

imo a real tough player can grow this short fund if his handicapping skills and his psychological skills were in order, but it is a real acid test. Any opinions?

Thanks in advance

Yes it's possible.

1. Have to be able to beat the game
2. Have to be patient enough to use the $100 as a bankroll, and not $100 to gamble.
3. Have to have at least a basic grasp on how Risk of Ruin and Bankroll Size and hit percentage, determines maximum wager size.


These 3 conditions are going to eliminate all but a very small minority of players.

[ManU918]

These "true shooters" are assuming that there would be additional funding somewhere down the line if the original $100 is lost.

If they knew that there would be no additional funds...then I think that they would change their tune real fast. :)

If I was given $100 tomorrow to bet on horses and it was my last $100 ever for horses... I am going all or nothing... Let me explain why... Never in my 29 year life have I ever bet a horse for $2. Even when I was a kid going to Parx (Philly Park) with my Dad...He would give me $5 for every race and on those races I would bet $5 to win. Now when I bet $50-$300 to win, I almost get mad when I do win with that amount wagered because I put so much time in studying for what? This game is to time consuming. I'm not going to handicap a card for hours upon hours to find three races I like and bet $2 on each race...That's absurd. Sure on exotic tickets where I am just being an action whore I have $20, $30 and $40 tickets...Call me a degen or whatever you like but once you reach a certain amount on win bets, it's hard to go back... Just my take on things.

[MJC922]

The point of a meager bankroll with no added money puts the bettor in a position to use greater psychological skills in order to survive until the bank has a chance to grow. I guess what I am trying to impute is the urgency for discipline with the life or death of a last chance bankroll.

Ok, life and death it is. 2% on prime bets. 50% or higher win estimate at 8/5 or higher. Maybe two plays per day will fit this bill at a track. You're in for a long haul but it will build if you're good enough. There is nothing more to it than that. I would introduce action bets at some point in real world play however since it's all hypothetical no point in muddying the waters. Drop it down to 1% when you get to 200, at some point I do profit taking, but in a hypothetical don't bother, the wager is capped where it doesn't ruin your odds, 10,000 bankroll maybe? depends where you play.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Ok, life and death it is. 2% on prime bets. 50% or higher win estimate at 8/5 or higher. Maybe two plays per day will fit this bill at a track. You're in for a long haul but it will build if you're good enough. There is nothing more to it than that. I would introduce action bets at some point in real world play however since it's all hypothetical no point in muddying the waters.

I disagree with the action bets for me as my wagers would be clear cut advantages with value that I can justify even if the wager lost. I think the action bet principle would leave out the tremendous discipline needed to grow the bank. just my opinion

[precocity]

EHHH 100$ bankroll not sure, not the way I play but I waiting for the right race to unload 5 horse box on a 1$ tri or wps. did see a guy about 12yrs ago do 100$ straight bet at belmont 7-4 paid 89 for 2$. never know.

[thaskalos]

If I was given $100 tomorrow to bet on horses and it was my last $100 ever for horses... I am going all or nothing... Let me explain why... Never in my 29 year life have I ever bet a horse for $2. Even when I was a kid going to Parx (Philly Park) with my Dad...He would give me $5 for every race and on those races I would bet $5 to win. Now when I bet $50-$300 to win, I almost get mad when I do win with that amount wagered because I put so much time in studying for what? This game is to time consuming. I'm not going to handicap a card for hours upon hours to find three races I like and bet $2 on each race...That's absurd. Sure on exotic tickets where I am just being an action whore I have $20, $30 and $40 tickets...Call me a degen or whatever you like but once you reach a certain amount on win bets, it's hard to go back... Just my take on things.

It has nothing to do with whether or not we like making $2 wagers.

There is a question that needs to be asked of each player individually...and the way each of us answers this question determines what our state of mind is in our gambling approach :

Is it better that we have a $100 bankroll and try to grow this bankroll over time by starting off with tiny wagers which would slowly grow in accordance with our slowly growing bankroll...or is it better that we bet this "bankroll" all at once and lose it, and then be broke and completely out of the game?

[proximity]

idk, this question is a bear. on one hand i probably spend more than $100 a month on track coffee. but on the other hand my show betting this year has been real strong.

at a time when my rebates have been taken away and teenage kids own the horses this is tough for me to think about.

[ManU918]

It has nothing to do with whether or not we like making $2 wagers.

There is a question that needs to be asked of each player individually...and the way each of us answers this question determines what our state of mind is in our gambling approach :

Is it better that we have a $100 bankroll and try to grow this bankroll over time by starting off with tiny wagers which would slowly grow in accordance with our slowly growing bankroll...or is it better that we bet this "bankroll" all at once and lose it, and then be broke and completely out of the game?

I think the real question is... Are you in this game for entertainment or are you in this game to make money? If your in this game to make money, its going to take you years before you can make a withdraw from that initial $100 investment if you are making $2 bets. It's not like you are investing this $100 and someone else is doing the work for you and years later you can go to that initial investment and see that from the $2 bets it has now grown to $800 and the bets are now $5.... You are the one handicapping, watching the races, replays, charting, etc... That shit takes time. I personally would rather be out of the game then be betting $2 a race. When I'm at the track and I hear people screaming at the TV for their $2 win bets... I want to :bang:

[thaskalos]

I think the real question is... Are you in this game for entertainment or are you in this game to make money? If your in this game to make money its going to take you years before you can make a withdraw from that initial $100 investment if you are making $2 bets. It's not like you are investing this $100 and someone else is doing the work for you and years later you can go to that initial investment and see that from the $2 bets it has now grown to $800 and the bets are now $5.... You are the one handicapping, watching the races, replays, charting, etc... That shit takes time. I personally would rather be out of the game then be betting $2 a race. When I'm at the track and I hear people screaming at the TV for their $2 win bets... I want to :bang:

The truth is that the vast majority of the bettors are losing money in this game...and they would be a lot better off if they kept their bets at $2 instead of betting serious amounts.

I don't look down on the guys who are betting $2 a race when they are uncertain of what their long-term results in the game will be. I shake my head when I see those losing high-rollers...who can only get their kicks by making big bets...and who then chalk up their heavy losses to "entertainment".

IMO...the bettor should have to EARN the right to bet more than $2.

[cj]

IMO...the bettor should have to EARN the right to bet more than $2.

Wouldn't we all be betting $2 then? No offense, but without bad bettors, I'm not playing.

[thaskalos]

Wouldn't we all be betting $2 then? No offense, but without bad bettors, I'm not playing.

I am trying to be magnanimous for once...and you are ruining it for me. :)

[ManU918]

The truth is that the vast majority of the bettors are losing money in this game...and they would be a lot better off if they kept their bets at $2 instead of betting serious amounts.

I don't look down on the guys who are betting $2 a race when they are uncertain of what their long-term results in the game will be. I shake my head when I see those losing high-rollers...who can only get their kicks by making big bets...and who then chalk up their heavy losses to "entertainment".

IMO...the bettor should have to EARN the right to bet more than $2.

I don't want to take over this thread but there is a lot of room to work with between betting $2 and serious amounts. I don't look down on anyone for betting any amount when they keep their mouth shut... But if you are going to scream... Don't blow my ears out over a $2 win bet on a horse that is 6/5. I am the type of person who has the same reaction after a win/loss regardless if my bet is $50 to win or of my bet is $1000 to win. I sit there and don't say a word.

That's your opinion and I respect that. But in a parimutuel game we need all the high roller/people who haven't earned the right to bet more then whatever amount of money in the pools.

[proximity]

Don't blow my ears out over a $2 win bet on a horse that is 6/5. .

if you can suffer the boors that go to mid-atlantic poker then nothing at a track should bother you. :D

[thaskalos]

I don't want to take over this thread but there is a lot of room to work with between betting $2 and serious amounts. I don't look down on anyone for betting any amount when they keep their mouth shut... But if you are going to scream... Don't blow my ears out over a $2 win bet on a horse that is 6/5. I am the type of person who has the same reaction after a win/loss regardless if my bet is $50 to win or of my bet is $1000 to win. I sit there and don't say a word.

That's your opinion and I respect that. But in a parimutuel game we need all the high roller/people who haven't earned the right to bet more then whatever amount of money in the pools.

I want the big losers in the game too...but that's not the main point in this discussion. When someone asks me for my opinion on an issue...I give him an honest opinion which I think would benefit HIM. I don't give him the advice that would benefit me.

I like it better this way...

[cj]

I want the big losers in the game too...but that's not the main point in this discussion. When someone asks me for my opinion on an issue...I give him an honest opinion which I think would benefit HIM. I don't give him the advice that would benefit me.

I like it better this way...

I do the same, but one thing I've learned in this game is that very few really listen. Most people that gamble have a very hard time doing the work necessary, and when they do, they have a very hard time breaking away from betting the public choices.

[thaskalos]

I do the same, but one thing I've learned in this game is that very few really listen. Most people that gamble have a very hard time doing the work necessary, and when they do, they have a very hard time breaking away from betting the public choices.

This is true.

Knowing what to do is one thing. Actually doing it is something else altogether...

[spicytomato]

I am patient
I have watched and noted in my brain many horses
that constantly come in the money
when I see the opportunity to make money i wager

way less handicapping
and a quick skim of the daily entries
tells you whether you are in for a few win bets
or in for a nice DD or p3 or p4

no hurry with it at all :cool:

[ManU918]

I do the same, but one thing I've learned in this game is that very few really listen. Most people that gamble have a very hard time doing the work necessary, and when they do, they have a very hard time breaking away from betting the public choices.

I once watched an interview where a guy said, "The next 1/5 shot I bet will be my first". That's the beauty of this game... **** the public.

[ManU918]

I want the big losers in the game too...but that's not the main point in this discussion. When someone asks me for my opinion on an issue...I give him an honest opinion which I think would benefit HIM. I don't give him the advice that would benefit me.

I like it better this way...

But how is betting $2 a race benefiting him? By allowing him to have action for a longer period of time? Who are we talking about here? A sharp who can turn this $100 initial investment into an actual bankroll by betting $2 a race or a square who is just looking to keep the action going as long as possible?

[precocity]

but why even play the game on a 2$ wager? take that 100$ and go for broke! handicap,intuition, gut feeling and when that fails wait for the time is right and bet again.
self control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thaskalos]

But how is betting $2 a race benefiting him? By allowing him to have action for a longer period of time? Who are we talking about here? A sharp who can turn this $100 initial investment into an actual bankroll by betting $2 a race or a square who is just looking to keep the action going as long as possible?

I got the impression that we were talking about a guy who was attempting to find out if he had what it took to make a profit in this game while betting at the lowest acceptable level.

My hope would be that, once he found out that he could indeed profit in this game, then he would be persuaded enough to commit a bigger bankroll to this venture...to at least keep himself from dying of boredom. I would never suggest to a "winning player" to start betting at the $2 win level...that would be ridiculous.

If a winning player has no extra money to fund a betting bankroll with...then he should put in some extra hours at his regular job, so he could raise the money that way. Anything beats burning the midnight oil so you can put in a whole day of betting the next day...just to clear $2.

Let's not get crazy here... :)

[MJC922]

I disagree with the action bets for me as my wagers would be clear cut advantages with value that I can justify even if the wager lost. I think the action bet principle would leave out the tremendous discipline needed to grow the bank. just my opinion

Point taken. On theory I don't disagree, but in practice there is discipline involved with action bets if they're not allowed to exceed a certain amount. It's holding yourself within the acceptable amounts which is the key theme whether prime or action. While action bets may take away a bit from the ROI it might also keep you in better balance mentally. Certain people will benefit from the overall structure, it's an individual thing. Even capping bet sizes, individual thing there too, some people like me would get rattled if they lost too much in a day, maybe you have a higher tolerance for losses than me e.g. it would impact my handicapping if I lost let's say $2000 in a day. $1000 I could live with. Typical cap then is maybe $400 for me on prime bets, for you maybe $1400, depending upon where you play your edge may be gone with bets that large.

[Robert Fischer]

If I was teaching some guy how to play, I'd have him play on paper. Then I'd have him start with a hundred or so, and build that up.

It's a good experience.

[precocity]

hell if i'm playing 2$ a wager take me to the casino so ican play the slots :D


wich i never do and have no desire to play casino type games! laugh all you want I don't know how to play texas hold'em!!! :lol:

[Robert Fischer]

TMI = Probably Too Much Info, but my ROI on the year(and there's a good ongoing thread on ROI (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1517492&postcount=42)) is less than 1. In other words, I've had a losing year so far. (I'm not an ROI fan, or someone who re-calculates it, but I believe it is 0.94ish(Yes I know, that pretty much everyone who posted in the ROI thread has a positive ROI, & some are EXTREMELY HIGH!). With the types of wagers I make at this stage in my bankroll, I normally operate around 1.07. So how does it get to 0.94??


On 7/27 I lost my entire bankroll in 1 compulsive gamble bridgejump. The horse Kauai Katie (http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbPDFChartPlus.cfm?BORP=P&STYLE=EQB&DAY=D&tid=SAR&dt=07/27/2013&ctry=USA&race=5) was a really bad choice, who I had not even handicapped (only looked at the show pool), was in after a flat effort, and cutting back in distance worked vs. style = but all of that would only matter, if I had stayed within my wager-size rules.

I didn't wager again after 7/27.
It was a crushing loss :mad: :blush:, and more than that it was scary. If I lose control of my wager-size discipline and start gambling in a compulsive way, than this is something I can't afford. I would have to stop the one thing in this world that I can currently practice on even terms(less the whales) with other members of society, and thus the one thing I currently have that I can excel in. Gambling however, would mean it is over.

This month I started again with a $200 deposit. My goal is to make 2% a day. [Light hasn't been a guy I always agree with, but this is 2 threads I've seen him mention 2% as well = the other I went into more detail (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1517492&postcount=42)]If you grow a $100 bankroll at 2% per day compounded it will be $1,000 in 4 months.That's like 9-1 odds. In four months from that you will have $10,000.At the end of a year you will have $100,000.
2% of 200 = $4 a day at the beginning and at the end of the month about $6.50 profit per day or so.. If you manage 25 days wagering you would be up to ~$320, which is a profit of $120 obviously.

This month, I've gotten up to ~$960 as of now. So that is a 760 profit, which isn't anything, but everything is relative. My roi is something like 1.14(which is like 7points higher than it usually should be), but as universal as it is understood, ROI is not something I care much for. I do follow the 2% "days" as mentioned in that other thread. Rather than the tiny dollar amounts at this stage, the idea of progressing or regressing "days"(sections of 2% from the current amount) does provide incentive, and it has been 120 "days", which is good for about 22 physical real time days. The important thing is that my brain is still working, and the game hasn't changed drastically, and that this month all of my wagers have been within my wager-size rules.

In some ways, I would have been better off, had I just borrowed $5K. With the same plays, I would be up to $36K now, and my exotic wagers would be a lot less restricted. However, I wasn't down because of bad luck, I was down because I broke the fundamentals and made a compulsive gamble. I needed another round of fundamentals and a renewed RESPECT for this thing of ours.

Small starting bankrolls will save the vast majority of players a lot of money. However, if you can afford to treat The Sport of Kings as a gambling game, it is more fun with larger amounts. It is also hard for a winning player to use $100. Like I said, 2%/day is my goal. That would be $60 profit for a whole month! Had you started with $100, and made the 2% goal for 25 calendar days !! Even an unrealistic success like I've had this month would be a $375 profit. A winning player is not going to want to start with $100 a bunch of times (and they shouldn't have to, if winning, as their bankroll will continue to grow exponentially and be meaningful within a year).

-->For the small percentage of aspiring horseplayers this is something that is invaluable. It's an exercise in money management, and horseplaying, and the gains involved, while the cost is low. Like I said, I am of the minority who strongly reccomends playing on paper, and this is the next step(although paper play should be ongoing with exotics that are near->but out of range--> of current wager-size limitations(example: if a $100 bankroll, pick 3's are maybe the next step... can't afford with real money... practice on paper, so that they can be included soon once bankroll gets big enough to play with real money, at which point pick-4's are played on paper....)

[stu]

Let's re-frame to the question in poker terminology:

"Can you win with 50 chips left? What changes would you make in your regular routine if you had 50 chips to wager with as if it was your last bankroll?"

I am abstracting the value of money out of the equation. The boundary conditions are "a one-time only allotment of 50 quanta of betting opportunities to grow."

Using the Poisson distribution you would need a minimum win percentage of approx 25% to quick the risk to tapping out under 1,000,000 to 1. (Assuming that one is making collectively net profitable wagers at a maximum of bet size of 1/50th of the bankroll).

I would recommend finding profitable spot plays that hit at least 25% of the time.

[stu]

Another crazy way to look at the $100 problem, is to reduce your risk by reducing the bet size with respect to your bankroll.

Some tracks (can't come up with the list off the top of my head) actually have a minimum wager of $1 for win bets. If you only had a one-time $100 influx of cash, then it could be considered prudent to identify those tracks with a $1 minimum wager and only bet there until you get your bankroll up to $200 and then bet $2 at any other track

[Robert Fischer]

Another crazy way to look at the $100 problem, is to reduce your risk by reducing the bet size with respect to your bankroll.

Some tracks (can't come up with the list off the top of my head) actually have a minimum wager of $1 for win bets. If you only had a one-time $100 influx of cash, then it could be considered prudent to identify those tracks with a $1 minimum wager and only bet there until you get your bankroll up to $200 and then bet $2 at any other track

Bankroll, Hit%, and Wager Size all play a part in Risk of Ruin. :ThmbUp:



I didn't know about $1 wager totals.
Can you think of any off the top ?


That is cool. I can't think of when I'd exploit it, but I think the wager limit should be the same as the minimums.
For example: 10cent superfecta = :1::2::3::4: straight dime super = $0.10 , may have some interesting pros/cons. hmmmm

[iceknight]

Bankroll, Hit%, and Wager Size all play a part in Risk of Ruin. :ThmbUp:


I didn't know about $1 wager totals.
Can you think of any off the top ?


That is cool. I can't think of when I'd exploit it, but I think the wager limit should be the same as the minimums.
For example: 10cent superfecta = :1::2::3::4: straight dime super = $0.10 , may have some interesting pros/cons. hmmmm Your post on wager size was great!
Supers get hit very rarely (straight) so one is better of trying their luck at :1: key with :2:,:3:,:4: for $0.60 or key a possible winner with 4 others for a $2.40 bet. As long as you get the winner a decent number of times, even if you hit the super in an even smaller # of cases, as long as the field is larger than 6 horses, the returns will be decent. Of course, this can also get demotivating if you have the winner but no win bet and a losing super. So rather than wasting 60 or 240 cents, one is better of doing win bets - esp at BEL/AQU/SAR, GP, CRC, LRL, MTH, ALB, Woodbine, Deltadowns, LAD, EVD, LosAl (small fields though) and probably a few more that support $1 win bets. But $1 or $2 is not a huge difference and you are limiting your tracks (esp not playing DMR, SA, CD, KEE is a cardinal sin as you can get some good picks there). The bigger jump is going from 2 to 5 on win bets and there on.. I say that from experience as even on low banroll conditions, I have played some well handicapped picks at DMR/CD and those paid me back more at a $2WP than my picks at EVD or SAR/BEL/AQU.

[Light]

On 7/27 I lost my entire bankroll in 1 compulsive gamble bridgejump.

I have realized that the bets I don't make are just as important (if not more) than my best bets.




This month, I've gotten up to ~$960 as of now. So that is a 760 profit, which isn't anything,

Don't discredit that. That is validation that it is possible to reach your goal.

In some ways, I would have been better off, had I just borrowed $5K. With the same plays, I would be up to $36K now,

I don't think so. There is a different mindset at that level. Patience and discipline is required, otherwise you are truly just a "gambler" or playing for "fun". Continue to build your bank roll up to that level and take it from there. My 2% increase in bankroll also causes me to pass on some nice payouts. The reason I can pass them up now is because I know there is a much bigger jackpot than all these "missed opportunities" combined, if I stay the course.

[stu]

I didn't know about $1 wager totals.
Can you think of any off the top ?





Saratoga comes to mind - I remember reading a story about a prominent NY politician who funded his underage son to bet $1 win bets one afternoon at Saratoga - The story is over a decade old but can't find it google at this time of night

[Stillriledup]

Here's what you do, Lambo is on the right track, here are your initial options to grow the bankroll.

1) You wait until a horse at CT or MTN has at least a 300k show bet and you bet 96 dollars to show on the "sure thing" and you bet 2 dollars each to show on the next two main contenders. Most likely you will make 9.60 on the winning show bet and the worst you could do if the sure thing is in the money is make 5.60 (if your other 2 horses are off the board).

2) You wait until some horse gets a 40k show bet (or a 20k show bet, or a 10k show bet) at MTN or CT and you bet 2 dollars to show on 3 or 4 of the other next main contenders. This stuff has happened recently where horses who were very beatable were badly underlaid in the show pool, and even if the favorite hits show, you can actually recover more than 2.20 (something called net pool pricing).

3) You can follow Gus' theory and make 2 dollar win bets on overlays. But i think that if you find a heavy favorite that is between 1-5 and even money, you probably need to risk more than 2 dollars to make it worth your while. You're betting on a horse that has about a 50% chance to win, i'm not sure what the math suggests, but its probably more than 2% of your bankroll for optimum growth.

[Robert Fischer]

Your post on wager size was great!
Supers get hit very rarely (straight) so one is better of trying their luck at :1: key with :2:,:3:,:4: for $0.60 or key a possible winner with 4 others for a $2.40 bet. As long as you get the winner a decent number of times, even if you hit the super in an even smaller # of cases, as long as the field is larger than 6 horses, the returns will be decent. Of course, this can also get demotivating if you have the winner but no win bet and a losing super. So rather than wasting 60 or 240 cents, one is better of doing win bets - esp at BEL/AQU/SAR, GP, CRC, LRL, MTH, ALB, Woodbine, Deltadowns, LAD, EVD, LosAl (small fields though) and probably a few more that support $1 win bets. But $1 or $2 is not a huge difference and you are limiting your tracks (esp not playing DMR, SA, CD, KEE is a cardinal sin as you can get some good picks there). The bigger jump is going from 2 to 5 on win bets and there on.. I say that from experience as even on low bankroll conditions, I have played some well handicapped picks at DMR/CD and those paid me back more at a $2WP than my picks at EVD or SAR/BEL/AQU.

thx ICE, Not sure if you just mentioned some, and I'm doing a bad job of reading, but directed to you and Stu = which tracks allow $1 win bets?? (as the final minimum bet.)[edit - thx Stu, I'll have to check Saratoga, others]

here's some more examples applied to a bankroll of $100 bucks
:eek:$100 BUCKS!! TAKE A WALK ON THE WILD SIDE BB!!:eek:

Win Price..........(bet between) MAX ..........(and) CONSERVATIVE
:1:$4(even money)..... $8.33....................$2.08
:2:$6(2-1shot)............ $4.76....................$1.19
:4:$11(9-2shot).......... $2.33....................58cents
:7:$16(7-1shot).......... $1.61....................40cents

Tip = For :7:the 7-1 shot (and the "conservative" suggested amount for :2: (the 2-1 shot) whose wager-size suggested amount happen to be between $1 and $2), At tracks which offer $1 win minimums, they could be safely bet.
Example: $1 WIN AND $1SHW ON :7: (the 7-1shot from the above example chart). You have now balanced a win bet within the allowable wager-sizes.:eek: :ThmbUp: Better yet if it was actually a $1 minimum for that wager and no shw bet needed. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

otherwise, sticking to the rules, you have to wait to get to $124 bankroll to bet a 7-1 shot ($2win) per my wager-size system.

[Stillriledup]

Bankroll, Hit%, and Wager Size all play a part in Risk of Ruin. :ThmbUp:



I didn't know about $1 wager totals.
Can you think of any off the top ?


That is cool. I can't think of when I'd exploit it, but I think the wager limit should be the same as the minimums.
For example: 10cent superfecta = :1::2::3::4: straight dime super = $0.10 , may have some interesting pros/cons. hmmmm

The dime super is a great tool for a person with a 100 bankroll, you can risk under 1 dollar and put yourself in a position to make a score in the hundreds or even thousands. If you invest 60 cents total, you have 166 super plays with your 100 bucks before you tap out.....i have to imagine that it would be nearly impossible to lose 166 in a row picking a key horse on top and going 3 by 2 behind it.

[Robert Fischer]

The dime super is a great tool for a person with a 100 bankroll, you can risk under 1 dollar and put yourself in a position to make a score in the hundreds or even thousands. If you invest 60 cents total, you have 166 super plays with your 100 bucks before you tap out.....i have to imagine that it would be nearly impossible to lose 166 in a row picking a key horse on top and going 3 by 2 behind it.

first AFAIK you can't bet 60 cent bets.
It has to be at least $2 total.
Like I said, maybe there are tracks which allow lower than $2, if so speak up.
Seems like overkill, but this thread is a great example of why 60cent supers would be awesome.

second = GREAT POINT. Supers can be a big ROI boost for races in which you have a big understanding of the vertical probabilities. It allows you to use 1 longshot or oppose 1 favorite in ways that over time should lead to HIGH ROI.

[thaskalos]

The dime super is a great tool for a person with a 100 bankroll, you can risk under 1 dollar and put yourself in a position to make a score in the hundreds or even thousands. If you invest 60 cents total, you have 166 super plays with your 100 bucks before you tap out.....i have to imagine that it would be nearly impossible to lose 166 in a row picking a key horse on top and going 3 by 2 behind it.

I think you are wrong.

I am sure I can do this without any problem.

[Robert Fischer]

I think you are wrong.

I am sure I can do this without any problem.

LOL
we are doing that football contest in OT/sports, and I have set new records for incompetence. I literally couldn't do worse if I tried on purpose -
- (actually, I would be battling for the lead had I picked the opposite football picks!!) :blush: :lol:

the drawback to supers is the low hit%.

You have to have a certain bankroll(per my rules, as in the example above) to even support a low percentage play like the superfecta.

Of course, there is a balance = Coverage.

The drawbacks of tracks demanding a $2 bet on a 10cents wager, are somewhat offset by forcing you to do a little bit more coverage.

With a $10,000 bankroll, there could possibly be some real merit in playing a lot of straight[if tracks had no minimum total wager amount] 10cent (or 60cent per above example) supers, which used a BIG ROI edge.
The less coverage, the higher ROI, especially if a certain horse provided the bulk of value.
It's just a low percentage hit rate in general.

[comet52]

first AFAIK you can't bet 60 cent bets.
It has to be at least $2 total.
Like I said, maybe there are tracks which allow lower than $2, if so speak up.
Seems like overkill, but this thread is a great example of why 60cent supers would be awesome.

second = GREAT POINT. Supers can be a big ROI boost for races in which you have a big understanding of the vertical probabilities. It allows you to use 1 longshot or oppose 1 favorite in ways that over time should lead to HIGH ROI.

I've made super bets that were less than a dollar on xpressbet.

[iceknight]

I've made super bets that were less than a dollar on xpressbet. However, that is determined by your state of residence.

Also MNR is the only track that does not take any bet ticket less than $2 in my experience, although they have a 0.50 super, I have been always forced to bet combos such that it is over $2 before it is accepted (on twinspires,tvg etc)

I have NOT been able to make ANY bet less than $2 (ie the ticket size has to exceed $2 even when playing 0.10 box or keyed supers). This is because I live in Pennsylvania and Xpressbet is quite fixed about that rule.

There are some other ADWs Ida/offtrackbet..g/tvg/twinspires that let one make even a single 0.10 super or $1 win or pl or sh bets on these tracks:

$1 Win tracks:
BEL/AQU/SAR, GP, CRC, LRL, MTH, ALB, Woodbine, Deltadowns, LAD, EVD, LosAl.

ALB Albuquerque , Gulfstream GP, Monmoth, lousiana downs (LAD), Evangeline, Calder race course CRC, Laurel LRL

[MJC922]

All IMO of course, but I beg to differ with those who believe you do something 'different' when you start out and then change up approach when you reach a certain point. 2% on prime bets is not overly aggressive, been there and done it. Once again we're assuming you're good enough which most people won't be -- and if you are then you most likely already know it long before going into this... the business about it being an experiment that holds you to a certain level of discipline doesn't resonate with me as unfortunately you will always have to maintain the same level of discipine no matter the bankroll size... every day is a tightrope walk and when you slip up on a day (inevitable) that mistake has to be made up by you conquering the inner demons the next day.

I can't recommend another way because it's the only way that ever worked for me as a fulltimer. The confines of the $100 really present no problem at all to me theroretically, the only problem I see with this particular $100 example is that modern day expenses would probably have you spinning wheels even with a reasonable ROI, I think it would be a more realistic example starting with a few hundred because if your ROI is let's say a very solid +15% and expenses are the same, you're not going anywhere at all with $100 except on paper.

[stuball]

If that was all I had and did not have to use it to live on--food-rent-gas
here is what I would do. Wait for a big day in racing let's just say The
Breeders Cup....wait patiently till it comes and attack whatever way you
want..except doubles..doubles at the breeders cup tend to pay less than
the parlay...do not play small fields no value....large fields large value..
do some research and pick the race you like..ok ready...now throw out
the 2 favorites and bet the remaining horses in a dutch...to win...if one of the 2 favs win your done..if not you have a winner. cash your ticket and look for the next race..take your winnings whatever and let it ride.....let me know how you do after the races on Friday..this is such a great system I am going to sell it
for $19.95 but I am giving it to you free..just send me 10% of your profits..
ASAP as I am temporarily short of funds...seriously short.......

Stuball :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

I operate with a $100 bankroll most of the time. If I lose it, I am not giving up horse racing for good. But I might have to wait until next month to bet again. I pull my winnings from time to time and spend them foolishly.
The first thing you have to do is cut expenses. No going to the track. You need to find an ADW that gives out free PPs. I stick to one track. I love the AQU inner because it cards basically the same type of race every race. I have learn to be on the look out for track biases. A bias can turn a day into 0/10 real easy. I look for the winner first, then hope it has some value. With only a $100 to work with, you don't bet horses that win 5% of the time but pay $50 very often if ever. If things are not going right that day, I quit after 3 or 4 races. Since you are only betting one track, you learn the trainers especially the ones that have horse in every third races. Listen to the track pickers. They like you spend every day picking the same races that you are betting. Sometimes they will spot something you missed. Yes, you are limited in what you do, but the good news is you get really good at what you can do.

[shouldacoulda]

There are 2 schools of thought. I read where one person said if you only have a $200 bankroll then it should be easy to replace and to go for when you make a wager. My thoughts are if you can only muster up $200 then it may not be easy to replace.

For the context of the question as proposed I would say patience and discipline betting to win or place looking for value. A 6 or 7 dollar place payoff is better than losing a head bob at the wire at15-1. It's happened to me too many times. With a small bankroll capital preservation and value are key as well as patience for the right play and discipline to wait for such a play.

I still have problems with that. I should take my own advice.

[DeltaLover]

My thoughts are if you can only muster up $200 then it may not be easy to replace.

Unfortunately, if this is the case then you shouldn't be thinking about horse betting but a real job!

[shouldacoulda]

Unfortunately, if this is the case then you shouldn't be thinking about horse betting but a real job!
True but that might eliminate a lot of retirees and casual bettors.

[raybo]

Many people bet 2% of their bankroll as a norm. So, 2% of $100 is $2, the minimum bet size for WPS wagers, and exactas at most tracks can be bet at $1 per combination, likewise quinella. Many tracks offer $0.50 trifectas and $0.10 superfectas, so a 2% of bankroll bet can be used even with a small bankroll, for many bet types.

Really, it is not a matter of bankroll size, it is a matter of hit rate and average payout. The higher your hit rate, the shorter your losing streaks. The higher your average payouts, in relation to your hit rate of course, means that that $100 bank will grow faster, again depending on your hit rate.

I started my betting career with a $100 deposit, but that was before 10 cent supers and 50 cent trifectas, so I was betting more than 2% of my bank on tris and supers (I didn't play WPS or exactas at that time) and I lost 3 of those $100 deposits before I finally hit a large enough payout to increase my bankroll substantially. From that point on, I have never made another deposit to my betting account. So, at least in my personal experience, a small bankroll like $100 can be used successfully, but it really boils down to the player. If you are good enough and disciplined enough there is no reason you can't succeed, even starting with a small bankroll.

Many sources have recommended 50 times your bet size as a minimum bankroll, $2 x 50 = $100.

[raybo]

I think you are wrong.

I am sure I can do this without any problem.

And, I agree with you, I could do that for sure. :lol:

Losing streaks in superfecta play can be humongous, if you're not spreading well on the bottom. Almost any horse in the field can get 4th or 3rd. So, take your single horse win rate and reduce it exponentially and you get an idea of how fast you can lose your $100, unless you have adequate coverage. $0.60 tickets are not going to get there, unless you just get lucky, of course, and "good" luck is not something I have absolutely no faith in. My base for a 10 cent super would be $1.20 minimum, depending on other race and track specific factors.

[raybo]

first AFAIK you can't bet 60 cent bets.
It has to be at least $2 total.
Like I said, maybe there are tracks which allow lower than $2, if so speak up.
Seems like overkill, but this thread is a great example of why 60cent supers would be awesome.

second = GREAT POINT. Supers can be a big ROI boost for races in which you have a big understanding of the vertical probabilities. It allows you to use 1 longshot or oppose 1 favorite in ways that over time should lead to HIGH ROI.

Untrue, I have never seen that stated anywhere that accepts the 10 cent super. One can bet as low as 10 cents, which would be 4 horses in a straight super ticket. I have bet less than $2 on supers many, many times, when the field is short and I have some throwouts. But, most of the time I'm betting at least a $1 super ticket. The 10 centers are usually saver bets, or a shot at a huge payout with unlikely, high odds ranked horses.

[raybo]

True but that might eliminate a lot of retirees and casual bettors.

I was going to respond to his post similarly, but thought better of it. Since you mentioned retirees and casual bettors, there is at least one other group out there that applies, those people who DO have a real job and after expenses $200 might be the amount of their disposable income, for entertainment or seeking another revenue stream, etc..

There are many here who have never lived from check to check just to survive, and there are many out there who do not have the opportunities to improve their lot in life, whether you believe it or not. The old statement that "one can do anything in a democracy" is simply not true for a very large number of people.

Does that mean that they shouldn't take enjoyment or the possibility of monetary success where they can find it? Absolutely not! As long as they are taking care of the essentials first, of course.

[Robert Fischer]

Untrue,...

Apparently, it is a state / adw issue as iceknight mentioned in post #66 above.

Bet Unsuccessful
(The requested bet amount is not allowed.)...

[Light]

Really, it is not a matter of bankroll size, it is a matter of hit rate and average payout.

I started my betting career with a $100 deposit,... and I lost 3 of those $100 deposits before I finally hit a large enough payout to increase my bankroll substantially. From that point on, I have never made another deposit to my betting account.

Raybo has me on ignore and I don't really care for most of his posts,but this is right on. If you can't make a profit with $100 then you can't make it with $1000. It's not the size of your bankroll that counts.It's you that counts. As Tony Calo would say: HELLO!

[wisconsin]

Another thing I have done is wager 20% of a short bankroll. $100 gives you a lot of action.

$20
$16
$12
$10
$8
$6

7 more at $4 apiece

13 wagers, and in normal sequences, you should have some winners in the first 6 bets. The idea is that the first bet must not be made unless it is some sort of overlay opportunity. You should never be I a hurry to bet, but going in thinking you will sit on your hands and make $2 bets is unrealistic and will cause one to make bad bets because "it's only $2".

[raybo]

Light is correct, I do have him on ignore, as I am sure others here do also, however, I still see some of his posts due to receiving email notifications of new posts, and the text in those posts, as well as quotes of his posts, and his "HELLO" reference is truly what it's all about. You either have it or you don't, in which case you either have to become a better player, quit, or accept that you will lose money. It's really that simple, and has little to do with the size of your bankroll, only your own abilities and basic traits.

[raybo]

$2 bets is unrealistic and will cause one to make bad bets because "it's only $2".

That sir, is not true. It is entirely dependent on the individual player. For some players $2 is important, especially if they are operating from a small bankroll and/or they are a part time player, which most here probably are. Everything is relative to the individual circumstances, and the player. To make such a statement, as if it were universally true, is quite closed minded, and extremely inaccurate, reflecting only your own personal experiences and maybe those other players you know personally. Our own "racing world" is relatively insignificant, compared to racing and players as a whole.

[wisconsin]

That sir, is not true. It is entirely dependent on the individual player. For some players $2 is important, especially if they are operating from a small bankroll and/or they are a part time player, which most here probably are. Everything is relative to the individual circumstances, and the player. To make such a statement, as if it were universally true, is quite closed minded, and extremely inaccurate, reflecting only your own personal experiences and maybe those other players you know personally. Our own "racing world" is relatively insignificant, compared to racing and players as a whole.


Ok, it is unrealistic for most players. Sorry.

There are very few strong enough to be "out of action" for prolonged spells waiting to bet $2. I think that I have an iron ass and still fight temptation every time I play, and my bets are much larger than a deuce. A slow grind of $2 plays is harder than you think.

You have clearly excelled (no pun intended) at this game and represent a very small minority of players who have done the same. All I am saying is there are bus loads of players who think "what's another buck?" when playing at very low levels.

[Robert Fischer]

Raybo has me on ignore and I don't really care for most of his posts,but this is right on. If you can't make a profit with $100 then you can't make it with $1000. It's not the size of your bankroll that counts.It's you that counts. As Tony Calo would say: HELLO!

I find myself agreeing with you more and more lately.

To nitpick at your point - there are legitimate differences in small bankroll play.

It is also so much more unforgiving to ignorance regarding low probability and risk of ruin. * In post #60 (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1522648&postcount=60) I showed that even a 7-1 shot with a $2 minimum is pushing the risk of ruin for a $100 bankroll.
Someone with a specialty in longshot play, exotics of 3+ sequences (pick3,Trifectas,pick4s.......), these guys will really have to grind aside from their strengths.

This is before considering things like 'focus', regardless of the fact that the short-term progress will not only not be life-changing, even a perfect day will not change your dinner or beverage for the evening. A slow grind of $2 plays is harder than you think.

Overall, yes Light, I agree.

[raybo]

Ok, it is unrealistic for most players. Sorry.

There are very few strong enough to be "out of action" for prolonged spells waiting to bet $2. I think that I have an iron ass and still fight temptation every time I play, and my bets are much larger than a deuce. A slow grind of $2 plays is harder than you think.

You have clearly excelled (no pun intended) at this game and represent a very small minority of players who have done the same. All I am saying is there are bus loads of players who think "what's another buck?" when playing at very low levels.

I agree, and that's ,one reason why 98% of players, or there about, lose money long term. It's like what was discussed previously in this thread or another, one must conquer oneself first, in order to succeed at this game.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Just caught up on the many responses. Imo the limited bankroll amount serves a purpose in order to see if a player has what it takes to earn a profit in this game. if a player has the discipline to start with small win wagers on value selections in combination with the occasional small well thought out exotic combinations he is setting a base for how he will act with the larger bets with the bigger bankroll.


100% loss acceptance is the key to success with this small betting fund. Eliminating as many variables in the selection process so as to wager only when the bet is accepted as the least amount of variables. Win or lose the bet was a good one and if I continue to make these solid wagers (according to your own plan) then I have a better chance of showing profit and building the $100 fund into something larger.

[traynor]

Just caught up on the many responses. Imo the limited bankroll amount serves a purpose in order to see if a player has what it takes to earn a profit in this game. if a player has the discipline to start with small win wagers on value selections in combination with the occasional small well thought out exotic combinations he is setting a base for how he will act with the larger bets with the bigger bankroll.


100% loss acceptance is the key to success with this small betting fund. Eliminating as many variables in the selection process so as to wager only when the bet is accepted as the least amount of variables. Win or lose the bet was a good one and if I continue to make these solid wagers (according to your own plan) then I have a better chance of showing profit and building the $100 fund into something larger.

It also eliminates the leverage provided by a larger bankroll or outside income source that misleads some into believing they are better race analysts than they really are. More than a few depend on some form of progressive wagering funded by a large bankroll (or with additions to the bankroll available) for profit. It all too sweet until that inevitable streak that wipes them out, or causes serious losses.

If one can't do it with a $100 bankroll, one should seriously ask one's self, "Hey, self, am I really as good as I pretend to be?" Castaneda referred to such endeavors as viajes de poder--journeys of power.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

It also eliminates the leverage provided by a larger bankroll or outside income source that misleads some into believing they are better race analysts than they really are. More than a few depend on some form of progressive wagering funded by a large bankroll (or with additions to the bankroll available) for profit. It all too sweet until that inevitable streak that wipes them out, or causes serious losses.

If one can't do it with a $100 bankroll, one should seriously ask one's self, "Hey, self, am I really as good as I pretend to be?" Castaneda referred to such endeavors as viajes de poder--journeys of power.


BRAVO!! You hit the nail right on the head in my opinion. Let's see if we have what it takes, the total commitment to playing for profit. A brutal honesty of our strengths and weaknesses must be paramount. No excuses. as for the $100 bankroll, remember, the journey of a million miles begins with the first step.

[raybo]

Just caught up on the many responses. Imo the limited bankroll amount serves a purpose in order to see if a player has what it takes to earn a profit in this game. if a player has the discipline to start with small win wagers on value selections in combination with the occasional small well thought out exotic combinations he is setting a base for how he will act with the larger bets with the bigger bankroll.


100% loss acceptance is the key to success with this small betting fund. Eliminating as many variables in the selection process so as to wager only when the bet is accepted as the least amount of variables. Win or lose the bet was a good one and if I continue to make these solid wagers (according to your own plan) then I have a better chance of showing profit and building the $100 fund into something larger.


BRAVO!! You hit the nail right on the head in my opinion. Let's see if we have what it takes, the total commitment to playing for profit. A brutal honesty of our strengths and weaknesses must be paramount. No excuses. as for the $100 bankroll, remember, the journey of a million miles begins with the first step.

There you go! :ThmbUp:

[VeryOldMan]

It also eliminates the leverage provided by a larger bankroll or outside income source that misleads some into believing they are better race analysts than they really are. More than a few depend on some form of progressive wagering funded by a large bankroll (or with additions to the bankroll available) for profit. It all too sweet until that inevitable streak that wipes them out, or causes serious losses.

If one can't do it with a $100 bankroll, one should seriously ask one's self, "Hey, self, am I really as good as I pretend to be?" Castaneda referred to such endeavors as viajes de poder--journeys of power.

Nice post - I'm bumping it and hope it doesn't get lost in the thread.