betting chalk

[ernie simons]

Let's assume an individual could pick winners with at least a 50% success rate, and as high as 65%, and do it every single day. But, these winners only pay from $2.50 to $4.50 for a $2 wager. Also, add to the equation OTB rake.
How is it possible to turn a profit under these conditions? If at all?
Flat bets break even at the end of the week.
No exotics.
Any ideas?

[superfecta]

Unless you are willing to bet sizable amounts of money,and limit yourself to large tracks,I think you will be better served to use a parlay to capitalize on your winnings.You can start with a small amount and after three races you start over,hopefully you will at least double your winnings as compared to flat win bets.
This is better than a simple pick 3 ticket because you get to choose which races as opposed to picking three in a row at one track.

[FortuneHunter]

Here is a simple ROI formula

H = HIT frequency ( in this example Win Rate)
O = Avg Odds
R = ROI (where ROI of $1.00 is breakeven)

R=H(O+1)

So If you want to realize an ROI of $1.20 (20% profit) then

at a 30% Win Rate

1.20=.30(O+1)

AvgOdds= 3 to 1

at a 50% Win Rate,

1.20=.50(O+1)

AvgOdds=1.40 to 1, or 7/5

at 60% win rate

1.20=.60(O+1)

AvgOdds= 1 to 1 (even money)


I hope this helps, FH

[sq764]

Well, mathematically, if you hit 65% of your winners at an average of $3.60, and you bet $20 per race, after 100 races you would profit $340.


I don't think there are a lot of chalk players that would take $2.50 on a horse. That is entering bridge-jumper territory.

[Lefty]

Under your hypothetical(you could do it every single day)
a simple 20% progression should suffice.

[ernie simons]

Lefty,

Could you elaborate?

[Lefty]

Say first bet $10 and loses. next bet 20% more $12 and so forth until profit then start over. If $12 loses then bet 20% more etc. It's simple but you need the kind of
pctg and consistency you described.

[ernie simons]

Lefty,

I like it. I'll try it tomorrow and let you know how I make out. I do hit em with that % and consistancy. Maybe I could go 50% Speed things up. Thanks.

Also, thanks to sq764, fortunehunter & superfecta for your input. I appreciate the help.

I thought of using the parlay idea, but when I go back over my records, I just don't have that many 3 string wins to get up. I may try raising my base bet & shooting for a 2 win parlay. Those I got.

Maybe incorporate a 20% progression with a 2 win parlay?

[superfecta]

Originally posted by ernie simons
Lefty,

I like it. I'll try it tomorrow and let you know how I make out. I do hit em with that % and consistancy. Maybe I could go 50% Speed things up. Thanks.

Also, thanks to sq764, fortunehunter & superfecta for your input. I appreciate the help.

I thought of using the parlay idea, but when I go back over my records, I just don't have that many 3 string wins to get up. I may try raising my base bet & shooting for a 2 win parlay. Those I got.

Maybe incorporate a 20% progression with a 2 win parlay?



Absorootly!
Whatever works for you.Thats the beauty of handicapping,you can tailor your betting to what works for you.

[ernie simons]

Betting chalk,

Here's how I made out today;

In the order I played;
Calder- L
AQ- W $3.70
AQ- L
AQ- W $3.00
Calder- W $4.20


20% progression $10 base bet minus OTB rake- +$5.25
50% progression- +$9.00
2 win parlay $10 base bet +$3.15
20% progression with 2 win parlay- -$15.50
$10 flat bets +$2.50

I actually used the 20% progression today for a profit of $5.25 The other figures are just projection.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by ernie simons
Let's assume an individual could pick winners with at least a 50% success rate, and as high as 65%, and do it every single day. But, these winners only pay from $2.50 to $4.50 for a $2 wager. Also, add to the equation OTB rake.
How is it possible to turn a profit under these conditions? If at all?
Flat bets break even at the end of the week.
No exotics.
Any ideas?

You can show, mathematically, that you cannot change the outcome by a betting scheme. If flat bets yield a ceirtan ROI, then, in the long run, any other scheme will yield the same ROI.

[ranchwest]

>If flat bets yield a ceirtan ROI, then, in the long run, any other scheme will yield the same ROI.<

thoroughbred,

You've really simplified this discussion, thanks.

[Lefty]

I've always thought of "bet Schemes" say a pctg of BR as a mild
and short bankroll way to get to your ideal level of flatbet.
Let's say you have a BR of $200 and you think you have a winning plan. You fig out that you can ideally bet 20% of BR on this winning plan. Now you do that until you get your bets to the
level you want, let's say that's $200 per bet. You've slowly and
almost surely raised your bets a little at a time until profits enabled you to make that $200 bet. And you have done it with little risk.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by thoroughbred

You can show, mathematically, that you cannot change the outcome by a betting scheme. If flat bets yield a ceirtan ROI, then, in the long run, any other scheme will yield the same ROI.

Yes ,you can prove it mathmatically,but you can also prove mathmatically that you can't beat the races.
The way you improve flat bet proficency is to parlay your bet.Sorta like compound interest on a credit card (2% a month does'nt sound like a lot,till you add it in every month,and at the end of a year its a bunch)
Doing the same with a bet - bet $2 win 4
Bet 4 win $8
All bets cashed at even money,two bets net a 300% ROI.
Feel free to add as many zeros to that example till you feel impressed :)

[karlskorner]

Superfecta;

When I lived in upstate New York, there was a road called Alms House Road (they changed the name quite awhile back) it led to what was known as the Poor House (long gone).

What you are suggesting in your statemnet "The way to improve flat bet proficiency is to parlay your bet" is about the worse advise you could give anybody and surely will lead them down their own Alms House Road.

For the past 50 years there have been books and articles written on parley betting, debit betting etc. and all of them are losers. It seems to me that everytime a question is asked on this board someone has a statiatic or mechanical system that will produce an answer, for what it's worth.

I said this before and I am going to repeat it.. The race you bet on today, will never be run again, so whatever statiatic you gathered from that race is useless in the future, as that race and the horses that ran in that race, will never run again. If you are going to stay "alive" in the business of horse racing, work on and improve your handicapping. Each race you wager on tomorrow must be looked at as something "new" and what ever happened in the past is just that, history.

Karl

[ranchwest]

>Doing the same with a bet - bet $2 win 4
Bet 4 win $8
All bets cashed at even money,two bets net a 300% ROI.<

You can count that $2 as few times as you want, but it isn't the same $2. You've bet $6 to win $12. That's a 1.50 ROI. Progressions and parlays are a hope that something besides handicapping will carry you through.

I think that an essential part of handicapping is to analyse what has been statistically sound in the past and see if it applies to the current situation. I believe that there are a lot of different paths to the winner's circle and you have to handicap to evaluate which path is applicable to the race at hand.

[superfecta]

Karlskorner,
I am not advocating a system,I am suggesting one maximize the profit potential when using a flat bet method.Because making a flat bet on every race is one of the hardest way to make a profit.Especially on short priced horses.What I am proposing is money management.If you don't have a way to bet effectively,you waste opportunities to make profit.

Ranchwest,
As I was saying to karl,money management was what I was suggesting.Not a handicapping method.I belive you need both in order to make money at this game.You can use any method in the world to pick winning horses,but if you don't know how to bet in proper perspective,you won't make money,or as much as you should.Since we don't know the number of races we will win,we should be willing to bet more aggressively on races we are confident in(or we know will pay well in relation to the odds)and not so much on races that we like but not totally comfortable with.And at the end of the year maybe show a profit.I hope that makes some sense :)

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by superfecta


Yes ,you can prove it mathmatically,but you can also prove mathmatically that you can't beat the races.
The way you improve flat bet proficency is to parlay your bet.Sorta like compound interest on a credit card (2% a month does'nt sound like a lot,till you add it in every month,and at the end of a year its a bunch)
Doing the same with a bet - bet $2 win 4
Bet 4 win $8
All bets cashed at even money,two bets net a 300% ROI.
Feel free to add as many zeros to that example till you feel impressed :)

Sorry to have to tell you again, that neither this nor any other system will change the long term outcome. Some of these systems "feel good" or "feel logical" but they are not.

The long term result, whether profitable or not, will depend on your handicapping skill and will be the same independently of parleys, doubling up, betting percentage of bankroll, etc.

[Dave Schwartz]

Karl,

I believe what Superfecta is alluding to is that the math behind a parlay exagerates your advantage or disadvantage.

Example:

Suppose you have a system that hits 30% winners at an $8.00 mutuel. That translates to a +20% ROI.

If you parlayed your bet you'd win 9% (30% x 30% =6%) at an average mutuel of $32. That translates to a +44% ROI.

Contrary to popular opinion you CAN increase (or decrease) your advantage with a betting strategy.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Karl,

I believe what Superfecta is alluding to is that the math behind a parlay exagerates your advantage or disadvantage.

Example:

Suppose you have a system that hits 30% winners at an $8.00 mutuel. That translates to a +20% ROI.

If you parlayed your bet you'd win 9% (30% x 30% =6%) at an average mutuel of $32. That translates to a +44% ROI.

Contrary to popular opinion you CAN increase (or decrease) your advantage with a betting strategy.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz


Dave,

The key, in your example, is the amount of the mutual, which, of course represents the odds.

If you assume the odds represent reality, and many studies have shown that the crowd usually gets the odds right, then no betting scheme can, in the long run, change the outcome.

I'm not talking about the case, where through handicapping skill you find situations where the crowd is wrong, and you manage to get horses to bet on whose odds are higher than they should be.

Here is a trivial example to show what I mean.. Consider the tossing of a fair coin where the odds are 50/50, i.e., 1 to 1, and those are the odds you get when you bet heads or tails on the coin toss.

Lets say, for simplicity, that you bet heads only. No betting scheme will yield anything other than break even in the long run.

Of course there will be short term winning and losing streaks, but in the long run, you will break even, no matter what your betting strategy is.

You can verify this by setting up a coin tossing computer program and doing, say, one million runs, (to make the point), and you will find that you are absolutely at the break even point regardless of
how you bet.

Of course if, somehow, you had psychic skill to predict the coin toss outcome correctly more than 50% of the time then, of course, you would end up making a profit.

It's handicapping skill that leads to profits, not the betting method.

[GameTheory]

Hmmmm...

I don't think it is quite true practically (although it may be mathmatically) that all betting systems lead to the same ROI, because in reality people have limited bankrolls. Also, ROI isn't everything -- what really matters is actual dollars of profit in a given time period, which can definitely be affected by how you bet.

Plus, there are many betting systems that will lead you to ruin very quickly, even if you can show a flat-bet profit. That's the danger of progression systems -- you quickly can get to the point where you're making a huge bet just to recover your losses and end up +$2 or whatever.

If you can't make a flat-bet profit (and I mean profit, not breaking even), don't even THINK about trying to use some betting scheme to get you into the profit -- it won't work. IT WILL NOT EVER WORK in the long run.

However, if you do get a flat-bet profit AND a high win percentage, then a rolling parlay system might accelerate your earnings (it might make your ROI go down, but your actual dollars profit go up). That is, don't parlay your bets like this: 1 parlayed into 2, 3 parlayed into 4. EVERY bet starts its own parlay. So each bet is your base amount plus the amount won from the bet before it. Of course, in these days of multi-track simulcasting, what order of bets do you choose? Its probably more trouble than it is worth. If you're only playing one track, it is easy to keep track of. Also, luck now enters the equation, and you could easily turn a winning system into a losing one. The high win percentage is a must...

Which leads us back to the only completely sensible way of betting -- flat betting. It's really the best way to go, using a "plateau" system to increase your bets up the desired level, assuming you are starting with a limited bankroll. So start with a nice conservative 1-3% of your initial bankroll, and then flat bet that amount until your bankroll becomes large enough to increase your bet while maintaining the same percentage. You NEVER decrease your bet due to losses or anything else.

So if you start with $100, you might make $2 bets until you have $150 dollars, then start betting $3. But if your bankroll then drops to $99, you still bet $3. In the end, if your handicapping is sound and you are betting on overlays and using a nice small percentage of the intial bankroll as your unit bet, you will prevail...


Some specific advice on betting on chalk: check out how you would do betting to show. Most of the time you will do better than betting to win with very low priced horses. Most people bet long shots to place and show, which is exactly the wrong thing to do because they have to share those pools with the low priced favorites most of the time, sucking all the value out of the bet. So place and show should be used for low-priced horses, where they can share the pools with the higher-priced ones, increasing the value. If you are hitting 50-65% to win and breaking even, you are probably hitting nearly 90% to show with a 10-15% flat-bet profit -- check it out!

[karlskorner]

Dave Schwartz;

I guess it's the "new math" that is confusing my mind. Ranchwest makes the statement if you bet $6.00 to win $12.00, thats 1.50 ROI (I am assuming that means 150%). I have always felt that if I walked into the track with $200.00 and left with $400.00 (regardless how I earned it) I doubled my money or made 100% ROI or if I wagered $40.00 and received back $80.00 on a single wager that I made 100% ROI. I guess I have been wrong all these years.

Your statement that a system that hits 30% winners at an $8.00 mutual translates to a +20% ROI (again I am assuming that you mean an $8.00 average mutual) and if you parlayed your bet you would win 9% at an average mutual of $32.00 that translates to a 44% ROI is most confusing to me at 3:30 AM (just got home from a great New Years Party).

Those who think they have a "system" based on historical statistics or start doubling up or increasing their basic wager because they are on a "winning streak" will soon believe they can "walk on water" and attempt to cross the pond in the middle of the track.

Superfecta states that making a flat bet on every race is one of the hardest ways to make a profit at the track, while I am of the belief that making anything but a flat bet is gambling. If you "found" the horse bet it, your investing not gambling.

Karl

[GameTheory]

Yeah,

ROI always refers to Return On Investment, so what matters is the actual amount of bets you make, not what's in your pocket.

If you take $100 and make one bet with the whole amount and get back $200, thats a $2.00 ROI ($2 for every $1 bet, or +100%) .


You could also take that same $100 and bet it a bunch of times, go home with a profit of $1000, but having only a +20% ROI. Which is why I said ROI isn't everything -- dollars are.

[ranchwest]

Karl,

You are correct. I edited my message and made an error in posting. $6 to $12 is a 2.00 ROI, which is a profit of 100%. So, I think we're on the same page.

My point was, given the premise that $2 gets $4 and $4 gets $8 yields 300% because you're going from $2 to eventually $8 is false logic. Yes, that's the increase in bankroll, but that is not the ROI. The ROI is dependent upon two occurances, winning two races, thus investing twice, $6 total and getting a return twice, $12.

Superfecta,

You state:

>we should be willing to bet more aggressively on races we are confident in(or we know will pay well in relation to the odds)and not so much on races that we like but not totally comfortable with<

That's not at all what was being suggested. What was being suggested was not based on confidence level, but rather just mechanical circumstances. I'm in total disagreement with mechanical circumstances, progression for the sake of progression.

As for betting according to the confidence level, that doesn't work for me. I'm in the flat bet camp. An error in confidence on a large bet leaves a big void to be filled by the races in which I have less confidence. I'd rather go for the long-term investment than the quick hit gamble.

[ranchwest]

Karl,

>Those who think they have a "system" based on historical statistics...<

Isn't all sound handicapping based significantly on historical statistics?

I think where people go wrong is in assuming that there is one system for all races. For me, there are potentially hundreds of systems and handicapping involves matching the current race to the relevant historical statistics.

For instance, you have stated that you track key races. You know that historically key races are sound handicapping tools. The question is, is the race at hand impacted by a key race? If a horse finished last in a key race, is he a live play? What if he led until mid-stretch and then faded to last? Is he a live play? How does all of that play into the race at hand? To me, that is handicapping.

[Schlagman]

If you have a positive expected return, then the way to maximize profits is to bet a percentage of your bankroll. This will make more money in the long run than flat betting. However, the tricky part is accurately estimating what your advantage is - the future rarely conforms to the past. For this reason, and to minimize the risk of ruin, those who use a form of percentage of bankroll wagering usually are very conservative in estimating their edge and coming up with a bankroll percentage. If the estimate of your edge is way off, then flat betting can be the least risky approach. The plateau method that Game Theory presented is a nice compromise.

As for progression betting, it can be shown mathematically that a progression approach (Martingale) can make money even if you have a small negative expectation providing you have a very large bankroll and there are no limits to the size of your wager. This is the reason casinos have limits on such games as roulette and craps where some wagers can be made with small negative expectations. If they didn't have these limits, they could be beat. In horse racing, once your wager gets to be very large you'll be adversely affectingly your own odds, so there is, in effect, a kind of limit unless you start wagering very small. Also, it can be psychologically difficult to make large wagers to recoup small initial wagers. But for those willing to do this, the game can be beat even with a small negative expectation.

[Lefty]

% of BR or Kelly if you will is sort of a partial parlay and will get you where you want to go IF you have a winning plan and you don't have to have 2 wins in a row.
My advice is to try to get your hands on the late Huey Mahl's money mgt booklet where he discusses Kelly.
Try Gamblers' Book Club in Vegas.

[karlskorner]

The word "bankroll" confuses me.

Is this an amount left over from Christmas shopping, or money that a person has put aside to play with or is it a larger amount, where the player has left his employment and intends to earn a living at the race track?

I have heard of the Kelly system and Martingale and Huey Mahl and other "money mangement" systems, but never bothered to read the material. The above posts and others I have read on this board seem to indicate that there is a positive, if not magical way (on paper) to increase your "bankroll" by following certain rules. Am I wrong in understanding that as your "bankroll" increases because of successful wagers, that you are to increase the amount of each wager in the future? If I am correct that this is "one" of the facets of "money mangement" than I say "it ain't going to work", maybe on paper, but not with your belly up against the outside rail.

As an example, I left home today with $500.00 to play all 12 races at CRC, as I like the entire card. I intended to play $40.00 win bets on each race and have $20.00 left over for lunch, should I go belly up. I came home with $1244.00 (the highest mutuall was $11.80 and I was not ashamed to take a $3.80 winner), does "money management" mean that I take the $1244.00 to the track tomorrow as my new "bankroll" and increase the size of each wager on the races I intend to play? No way Jose.

Karl

[ranchwest]

I've analyzed Karl's day. 9 of 12 winners. Three favorites, three second favorites, two third favorites and one fourth favorite. 2.59 ROI (159% profit). Looks like that is why Karl suggests learning to do something other than progressive betting.

[GameTheory]

Karl said:

The word "bankroll" confuses me.

Is this an amount left over from Christmas shopping, or money that a person has put aside to play with or is it a larger amount, where the player has left his employment and intends to earn a living at the race track?


Your bankroll is simply the money you've put aside to bet on horse racing. Could be any amount. It is the amount of money you currently have.


I have heard of the Kelly system and Martingale and Huey Mahl and other "money mangement" systems, but never bothered to read the material. The above posts and others I have read on this board seem to indicate that there is a positive, if not magical way (on paper) to increase your "bankroll" by following certain rules. Am I wrong in understanding that as your "bankroll" increases because of successful wagers, that you are to increase the amount of each wager in the future? If I am correct that this is "one" of the facets of "money mangement" than I say "it ain't going to work", maybe on paper, but not with your belly up against the outside rail.


Yes, and no. Some systems, like "bet a constant percentage" of your bankroll, advocate adjusting your wager up AND down constantly. Others may also include the odds of the horse that you're betting on as a factor -- bet more on bigger odds horses, for instance. The math is these systems is generally sound, but in reality they are usually bad ideas for us humans. Using the Kelly criterion properly, for instance, requires that you know your "edge" to a certainty, which means you know exactly what percentage of your future bets you are going to win, and the average mutual price you are going to get on them. These things are known in a general way to most successful bettors, but not well enough to be plugged into a precise mathmatical formula.

The plateau system I mentioned increases (never decreases) the bets gradually, but only to get up to a desired flat betting level. So it is a series of flat bets at one level, then you move up to the next level when you have enough money to do so. Let's say you only had $100 to take to the track. You probably wouldn't be planning on $40 win bets right away, but you could get there eventually by increasing your bankroll through winning.

All the money management systems besides flat betting are meant to improve on flat betting -- to "accelerate" the amount of money you make. These include Kelly, fixed percentage betting, unit bet plus square root of your profits, the rolling parlay, etc, etc.



As an example, I left home today with $500.00 to play all 12 races at CRC, as I like the entire card. I intended to play $40.00 win bets on each race and have $20.00 left over for lunch, should I go belly up. I came home with $1244.00 (the highest mutuall was $11.80 and I was not ashamed to take a $3.80 winner), does "money management" mean that I take the $1244.00 to the track tomorrow as my new "bankroll" and increase the size of each wager on the races I intend to play? No way Jose.


It certainly is not a requirement, but maybe you could now make $45 dollar win bets, or whatever. All of these systems assume you have a certain amount of money to work with -- your bankroll -- and don't just grab a random amount of cash to go to the track each day. It is an attempt to bet intelligently, treating the enterprise like a business, to maximize your profits. Of course, if every day at the track goes the way yours did, it hardly matters.

But if you make $20 win bets on some days and $40 win bets on others according only to your whim, then it is up to fate whether you make money or not -- if you have a bad "$40" day, it will take twice as many good "$20" days to make up for it.

[hdcper]

Dave,

I have though about your statement, "Contrary to popular opinion, that you can increase(or decrease) your advantage with a betting strategy". In your example of the parlaying as a means of increasing your ROI from 20 to 44%, I believe there is a error in your calculations.

In my opinion, you should calculate the ROI based on the return and the actual dollars wagered in both methods for the calculation of ROI.

Lets compare both methods assuming a 100 race sample.

First the flat bet method:

Amount wagered equals 100 plays times $2 = $200

Amount returned equals 30 wins time $8 = $240

Net profit $40

ROI = Net profit / Amount wagered or as you said .20 or 20%


Second the parlay method(here is where the error exists):

Amount wagered is equal to the following:

70 plays at $2 each (the 70% of the races you lose) = $140

plus, 30 wagers of $8 each, the next parlay bet after each win or another $240

total amount wagered is $380

You must consider that each win results in parlaying $8 even if they represent winning.

Amount returned is equal to the following:

21 wins times $8(represents return on 21 wins which is based on .30 time .70 times 100 or the portion of the 30 winners that do not result in the parlay being successful) = $168

9 wins times $32(which represents successful parlays based on .30 times .30 times 100) = $288

total amount returned is $456

Thus net profit is $76

ROI on parlay = $76 / $380 or again 20%

Now, you may feel that in both methods you initially invested only your $200 bankroll and therefore it will result in larger profits longterm. But realize you could just increase your flat betting amount equal to the actual $380 you ended up truly wagering during the 100 race parlay method. In addition, the flat bet method reduces long losing streaks because of the 30% win rate vs. 9% on parlay wagering. And further the parlay method, sooner or later will result in the so called 30 winners out of 100 never occurring back to back!!!

What do you think,

Hdcper

[thoroughbred]

SCLAGMAN QUOTE:

If you have a positive expected return, then the way to maximize profits is to bet a percentage of your bankroll. This will make more money in the long run than flat betting.

Why do you say that betting a percentage of your bankroll will make more money in the long run than flat betting?

Consider my coin tossing example in an earlier post. Try it and you will see that both approaches come out the same in the long run.

[Schlagman]

The way I figure my bankroll is to take the maximum amount I would be willing to ever lose, then double it. I make wagers on a small percentage of that bankroll. If the bankroll were to ever drop to half its starting value, I would quit. The other thing I do that hasn't been mentioned yet is to have 2 wager percentages - one for strong plays that have proven themselves over time, and a somewhat lesser percentage for plays I'm not as sure of. This works well for me.

[ranchwest]

GameTheory,

I think you need to be aware that Karl is a professional handicapper and has been for quite some time. Twice that I know of, he has related his day at the track and both times he was betting $40 on every race on the card.

If that's how he's making his living, I don't think you're going to convince him that if he wins enough then he needs to bet $45.

Assuming he is honest, and I have no reason to doubt him, Karl is doing quite well without increasing his bets.

If we could have 75% winners with 2.56 ROI on cards like Karl did today, we'd probably not be having this discussion about progressions and parlays.

[GameTheory]

I'm not trying to convince Karl of anything, just explaining a few concepts. It sounds quite like I agree with Karl on just about everything....

[Schlagman]

Thoroughbred,

The coin toss experiment you gave has a breakeven expectation, so the optimal strategy is to not play at all - unless you simply crave action with no gain. If your expectation is positive, then more money will be made from % of bankroll wagering than from flat wagering. Think of it as the compounding effect. But there is a danger of actualy losing money even with a positive expectation if you bet too large a % of your bankroll. So in practice, a conservative % is best. You can do a websearch on Kelly criterion to find out more.

[ernie simons]

Seems to me, everybody has their own personal idea of wagering. What may seem mechanical & disfunctional to one person, just may be what pays another mans bills. If it works for ya, DO IT!

My father, who was an inveterate horseplayer, would flat bet with a small % bet added to that, to cover any previous losses.
His bankroll for the day was determined solely by what he was willing to leave at the track should he have a bad day. To some this might seem ridiculous, to others it may sound familiar. To my father, it was the ONLY way to play. Because that's what worked for him. He did extremely well at the track. Mainly because he was a proficient handicapper.

I thank everybody for their input on the subject, and I respect everybody's opinion. Also, If I might add one more thing. I admire the fact that everybody who posts on this board does so with a high degree of class and respect for their fellow posters. It truly is refreshing.

I post on several gambling boards (mostly casino) and the juvenile namecalling & backbiting that goes on there is ridiculous. Anyone with a difference of opinion is an idiot, is made to know this, and is shown the error of their ways toot sweet.

Anyway, thanks again for all the help everybody.

Blue skies and fast tracks.



:D

[superfecta]

Man,where do I start?
We could go in several directions now on this thread.Money management,bankrolls,flat betting as the best/worst bet,ROI....
I will have reread these posts again,I think we can agree on alot of this stuff,we just use different terms to describe what we think works.
Even the things we don't agree on doesn't mean we are wrong,just different.
If it sounds like I am searching for a point,I am.Like I said ,I gotta reread and get my thoughts together.:)

[Lefty]

Karl is comfortable with $40 bets BUT i'm sure he didn't start out
betting $40. I bet he validated his approach and worked his way up to that $40 bet and that is a progression.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by Schlagman
Thoroughbred,

The coin toss experiment you gave has a breakeven expectation, so the optimal strategy is to not play at all - unless you simply crave action with no gain. If your expectation is positive, then more money will be made from % of bankroll wagering than from flat wagering. Think of it as the compounding effect. But there is a danger of actualy losing money even with a positive expectation if you bet too large a % of your bankroll. So in practice, a conservative % is best. You can do a websearch on Kelly criterion to find out more.

Schlagman:
I only used the coin tossing example because it is easier to deal with than the complexity of horse racing. But the principle is the same.
If you analyze your method over many trials, you will see the result is the same as flat betting even when your expectation is positive. The losses, at the progressive levels, have to be taken into account as well as the wins. When you do the analysis completely, all betting schemes lead to the same result, in the long run.
Of course, any time you are betting in the real world, you are not doing a "long run" process. So, if you happen to get a lucky streak, then progression can pay off for that day. But if you keep records, of all your bets, over many, many, days, the losing streaks will also come into play.
In the final analysis it is all the same even though it is difficult to visuallize this.
We human beings have great difficulty visualizing probabilities. That is why, for example, so many people got that famous problem wrong. The one in which there are 3 doors. Behind 2 doors there is a goat, and behind one is a Mercedes-Benz, etc, etc. I'm sure you have heard of this problem. All our human instincts usually get the wrong answer. (If you are not familiar with the problem, I'll write it out.)
Anyway, handicapping is fun, and let's hope, that by whatever means we approach it, that the New Year will be a success for all of us.
Best Regards

[karlskorner]

Lefty;

You are 100% right. Back in the late 70's I was your typical $2.00 bettor. Box Tri's, box Perfecta's, wheel this, backwheel that, the Holy Grail, baseball, chinese double, you name it. Than one day I hit a $22,000. Tri. So I increased my wagers, thats when I fell into the "walk on water" syndrome and found out there are no Life Guards ar CRC. It took me almost 10 years to eliminate all the bad habits I had developed.
Fortunately I was still in business, so the loses didn't matter, my "rice bowl" was being filled elsewhere. But when I went out on my own I realized that exotic wagering was not for me and started out with $20.00 wagers, soon got up to $100., but I was uncomfortable when I lost, came back down the scale and settled on $40.00 for the past 10 years. Ir's provided me with a decent living.

Karl

[Lefty]

Karl, congrats to you for doing what I have only been able to dream....making a living in a challenging, ofttimes frustrating sport.

[Schlagman]

Thoroughbred,

If what you're using works and you're comfortable with it, then more power to you. As Karl points out, one's comfort level is very important. However, if you (or anyone else) would like to try a little experiment, I think you may be surprised at the results. Set up a $1000 bankroll. Flip a coin at least 100 times, paying yourself 2 to 1 odds if you win. Track how you would do staying with a $40 flat bet throughout and how you would do with same $40 starting bet size but always betting 4% of your bankroll on each coin flip.