Target Betting

[romankoz]

I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.

[traynor]

I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.

Google Labouchere. There are (at least) two distinct types of "due column"--the "I wanna win this much today" and variants on the "cancellation" method used in roulette. It sounds like you are mixing them together.

[romankoz]

Darn, I just lost a posting so here goes again. I will shorten this one

After many years of tinkering with target betting I have come to realise you need to
a) make your objective per race a minimum of 1000 times the race objective and 2000 is even safer. Depends on your selecting history how confident you are.
b) the divisor must be commensurate to the odds of the horses in your betting price range, that is, it is silly to have a divisor of 3 if many of your selections are more than double the divisor figure.
c) to keep the run of outs down be prepared to mix win and place (in Oz place includes is part of one pool not two pools like your place and show)
d) be prepared to stop chasing if in any series you are X% ROI ahead pull the pin, take the profit on the series and start another.

How you keep the runs of outs down is dependent on how good a selector you are and making sure you actually feel strongly about the selection and the odds available. There are many races where the place bet has a stronger chance to get you a collect, at sensible odds, than a win bet when compared to one another.

Selection wise I like well fancied horses suited at the distance, track conditions, actual track and who can lead or sit on the pace most times.

[DeltaLover]

I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.


Forget Labouchere, Martingale, or whatever else money management system. You can try any possible way you to change your betting amounts and "manage" your bankroll, without ever having absolutely no impact to your real EV.

While your bankroll is still small, it is OK to take shots from time to time, trying relatively big bets while you are trying to grow it thus you can employ some sort of a parlay betting scheme, to speed up the impact of your EV. More than these, what you are referring to as "target betting" or whatever else, is simply an illusion and nothing else.

[Light]

If you are talking about "target betting" for the day you play, what percentage of the bankroll you have for that day are you trying to achieve?

For example, you have $100 to play with on any given day. How much do you want to have at the end of your betting day,including your $100?

[traynor]

Forget Labouchere, Martingale, or whatever else money management system. You can try any possible way you to change your betting amounts and "manage" your bankroll, without ever having absolutely no impact to your real EV.

While your bankroll is still small, it is OK to take shots from time to time, trying relatively big bets while you are trying to grow it thus you can employ some sort of a parlay betting scheme, to speed up the impact of your EV. More than these, what you are referring to as "target betting" or whatever else, is simply an illusion and nothing else.

Depends on how consistent one is, and what kind of ROI is generated. Pie-in-the-sky betting does not work well with any kind of money management. The gain from relatively fast turnover with a positive ROI can definitely be improved with money management.

[Dave Schwartz]

Depends on how consistent one is, and what kind of ROI is generated. Pie-in-the-sky betting does not work well with any kind of money management. The gain from relatively fast turnover with a positive ROI can definitely be improved with money management.

AMEN!

IMHO, statements like "Progressive betting is always bad," are just plain false.

IOW, if you have a negative expectancy the mathematically best way to play is to not play at all.

Admittedly, chase-the-money strategies are bad with a negative ROI, but then, so is every other betting system.

Understand that I am not suggesting that CtM is appropriate and/or comfortable for YOU.

[thaskalos]

These "raise-your-bets-as-you-lose" betting systems have never appealed to me. IMO, sizing our bets is a great idea...but the size of our bets should be determined by our level of confidence in the particular race...not by whether or not we lost our previous bet. I've met a couple of people who tell me that they've been successful with progression methods where the bets get larger as the losses mount, and I have no real reason to doubt them...but this type of progression isn't for me.

Sizing one's bets effectively is a very difficult endeavor, IMO, and it requires a lot of skill. Most players would do better with flat bets, I think...

[Some_One]

I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.

Sounds like a degen gambler to me, you want the action and high payoff and don't care about profit and structure.

[traynor]

These "raise-your-bets-as-you-lose" betting systems have never appealed to me. IMO, sizing our bets is a great idea...but the size of our bets should be determined by our level of confidence in the particular race...not by whether or not we lost our previous bet. I've met a couple of people who tell me that they've been successful with progression methods where the bets get larger as the losses mount, and I have no real reason to doubt them...but this type of progression isn't for me.

Sizing one's bets effectively is a very difficult endeavor, IMO, and it requires a lot of skill. Most players would do better with flat bets, I think...

Again, it all depends on turnover and ROI. There is a very good reason why most serious bettors (at least those using computer models) "truncate outliers" and apply other standard statistical processes to clean the data before trundling off to bet. It avoids much of the self-delusion of "I'm profitable!!!" Unless one is very certain what one is doing AND has a fairly rapid turnover AND a decent ROI, money management approaches are much better in theory than in practice.

Conversely, as Dave pointed out above, if one has a real world negative ROI and the positive ROI is only on paper from past races, the best money management method is not betting at all.

In most cases, the positive ROI is an illusory cluster in a sprinkling of random data points. In such cases flat betting and percentage of bankroll schemes will keep a losing scheme in action longer. Good for the hobbyists and recreational bettors who would go belly up much faster if their strategies were applied more aggressively.

I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Again, it all depends on turnover and ROI. There is a very good reason why most serious bettors (at least those using computer models) "truncate outliers" and apply other standard statistical processes to clean the data before trundling off to bet. It avoids much of the self-delusion of "I'm profitable!!!" Unless one is very certain what one is doing AND has a fairly rapid turnover AND a decent ROI, money management approaches are much better in theory than in practice.
...
...
...
I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.

Why is "rapid turnover" a key to success? I'll agree that outliers need to be pruned from the winners - that makes sense. But can't a player with an ROI of 1.15 who makes 100 bets a year compete with a player with an ROI of 1.02 who makes 1000 bets per year?

As for a confidence factor, I'll agree with you (and Thask) that it's a very advanced skill. A computer would be one way to get around it, while flat wagering is another. I tend to almost fade myself - especially at Hong Kong. The more I like a horse, the less I bet - as they tend to be the ones that run out.....

[traynor]

AMEN!

IMHO, statements like "Progressive betting is always bad," are just plain false.

IOW, if you have a negative expectancy the mathematically best way to play is to not play at all.

Admittedly, chase-the-money strategies are bad with a negative ROI, but then, so is every other betting system.

Understand that I am not suggesting that CtM is appropriate and/or comfortable for YOU.

I think it is more related to turnover rate than anything else, including bank size. A strategy based on a small number of high returns can easily go seriously haywire when wagers are increased after losses. There are a number of "plateau" schemes that work reasonably well, but I much prefer the high turnover rate. Much easier to detect when something is wrong.

I think (purely my own strategies in my own wagering and DEFINITELY not recommended for anyone else) I would much rather use increase-after-losses than percentage of bankroll or flat betting. That is based on experience wagering, not simulations (although the simulations indicate the same--or better--results). I have used all three approaches at various times, and both the flat bets and percentage of bank bets come up way short in the return area. Again, that is only my own wagering.

Increasing wagers has a tendency to weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies rather rapidly. I think it may be a bit too fast for most.

[thaskalos]

I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.
I rely on subjective feelings of "confidence" when I bet. It took a long time for me to warm up to the idea, but I now feel quite comfortable swinging for the fences, when I see the proverbial "fastball down the middle". But it's a tricky topic...and I can fully understand those who feel differently than I do. I too was resistant to the idea, for a very long time.

[traynor]

Why is "rapid turnover" a key to success? I'll agree that outliers need to be pruned from the winners - that makes sense. But can't a player with an ROI of 1.15 who makes 100 bets a year compete with a player with an ROI of 1.02 who makes 1000 bets per year?

As for a confidence factor, I'll agree with you (and Thask) that it's a very advanced skill. A computer would be one way to get around it, while flat wagering is another. I tend to almost fade myself - especially at Hong Kong. The more I like a horse, the less I bet - as they tend to be the ones that run out.....


It depends on the size of the base population. The fewer the number of matches, the more likely it is that what one sees as a pattern is only a cluster in a random distribution. It is easy to believe one has detected a profitable pattern in something that matched 20 times in a 1000 races, and then go belly up chasing that something that may not occur again in the next 3000 or more races. A pattern with 200-300 or whatever matches in a thousand races can be more easily assumed (not always correctly) to be more representative of a "normal distribution."

It is not the how many bets a year that matters. It is the how often do the matches win that matters, and whether that win rate is the result of anomalies or a normal distribution. "Rapid turnover" refers to the win-to-match ratio rather than the frequency of wagers.

[traynor]

I rely on subjective feelings of "confidence" when I bet. It took a long time for me to warm up to the idea, but I now feel quite comfortable swinging for the fences, when I see the proverbial "fastball down the middle". But it's a tricky topic...and I can fully understand those who feel differently than I do. I too was resistant to the idea, for a very long time.

It is not resistance. As I have mentioned a number of times, I have two very distinct betting strategies, in both volume and size. The bread-and-butter betting is almost entirely automated--high volume, "modest" amounts. For serious wagers, I want to be on-track, close enough to the horses to smell them, watch them from the time they leave the barn until they are ready to be loaded, and make my decisions based on "highly subjective" factors such as appearance, demeanor, attitude, and previous trips.

However, that decision-making process took a LONG time to develop, and I base it on acquired skills and experience in the areas that most would consider "subjective." I hunt with a recurve, not a compound. No sight pins, no range finders, no carefully calculated distance corrections. I see what I want to hit, and everything after that is "purely subconscious." The next time I manage to get back to Japan I look forward to some very intensive immersion in the fine points of kyudo.

[Dave Schwartz]

Traynor,

I agree with your perspective 100%!

[traynor]

Traynor,

I agree with your perspective 100%!

Thank you.

[DeltaLover]

Setting aside the situation that we have a bankroll so big that our 5% bet (or whatever else you like to use) can move the line, I have to disagree with all those who believe that we should not change the size of our bets!

I think that not self weighted betting approach, is the best way to make a score.

The profile of most successful gambler is tight and aggressive. By this, I mean that he is not involved in many races, but when he decides to bet, his bets are both large and also placed in such as way to maximize the return in the case the he happens to be correct in his assessments.

The more "dull" your approach is, the higher the chances of a long term lose is.

Obviously, this is happening because by definition, the times you are going to have an edge are way fewer to those that you have a negative expectation. When betting out of a small bankroll, you need to wait until you find the most favouring circumstances when you should place a large bet, trying to take the maximum advantage possible and repeat the same procedure until your bankroll grows to some significant levels.

After the bankroll reaches some significant levels, we can afford to become even more creative, designing betting approaches based on parlay of two (or even more events), shooting in very high return while completely ignoring hedges.

As an example, assuming that we have a middle size bankroll of $10K (which is still not enough to bet for living) we can certainly afford to bet a 5-1 shot for $200 and if we are correct collecting $1,200, we can now go for the kill by betting all of our winnings, in a race that we feel that we can get something like a 4-1 return on our investment.. In the case that we are going to be correct, our bankroll will grow by over a 50% rate while our risk, is only going to be $200...

[ReplayRandall]

As an example, assuming that we have a middle size bankroll of $10K (which is still not enough to bet for living) we can certainly afford to bet a 5-1 shot for $200 and if we are correct collecting $1,200, we can now go for the kill by betting all of our winnings, in a race that we feel that we can get something like a 4-1 return on our investment.. In the case that we are going to be correct, our bankroll will grow by over a 50% rate while our risk, is only going to be $200...
The strategy that you've outlined is great for live bankroll tournaments. You might want to think about pursuing these type of tourneys, as you appear naturally geared for these 1-2 day forays. As far as long-term live betting is concerned, I don't think this modus operandi will be successful.......You have the potential to be a very potent tournament player.

[thaskalos]

Setting aside the situation that we have a bankroll so big that our 5% bet (or whatever else you like to use) can move the line, I have to disagree with all those who believe that we should not change the size of our bets!

I think that not self weighted betting approach, is the best way to make a score.

The profile of most successful gambler is tight and aggressive. By this, I mean that he is not involved in many races, but when he decides to bet, his bets are both large and also placed in such as way to maximize the return in the case the he happens to be correct in his assessments.

The more "dull" your approach is, the higher the chances of a long term lose is.

Obviously, this is happening because by definition, the times you are going to have an edge are way fewer to those that you have a negative expectation. When betting out of a small bankroll, you need to wait until you find the most favouring circumstances when you should place a large bet, trying to take the maximum advantage possible and repeat the same procedure until your bankroll grows to some significant levels.

After the bankroll reaches some significant levels, we can afford to become even more creative, designing betting approaches based on parlay of two (or even more events), shooting in very high return while completely ignoring hedges.

As an example, assuming that we have a middle size bankroll of $10K (which is still not enough to bet for living) we can certainly afford to bet a 5-1 shot for $200 and if we are correct collecting $1,200, we can now go for the kill by betting all of our winnings, in a race that we feel that we can get something like a 4-1 return on our investment.. In the case that we are going to be correct, our bankroll will grow by over a 50% rate while our risk, is only going to be $200...

So...we select a 5/1 and a 4/1 shot...and BOTH have to win in order for us to go home with a profit.

[DeltaLover]

The strategy that you've outlined is great for live bankroll tournaments. You might want to think about pursuing these type of tourneys, as you appear naturally geared for these 1-2 day forays. As far as long-term live betting is concerned, I don't think this modus operandi will be successful.......You have the potential to be a very potent tournament player.

I have never participated in a horse betting tournament.. It should be fun though..

[DeltaLover]

[/COLOR]

So...we select a 5/1 and a 4/1 shot...and BOTH have to win in order for us to go home with a profit.

Something like this.. Of course instead of both winning, we might workout some kind of a different execution if we can bet our horse in the second position on the exactas, maintaining a similar rate..

Do you think you can go way with less risk?

[Light]

Yes, what type of bet(s) are those who claim to be using target betting using? Is it win, place, show, exactas, or some form of exotics? No mention of the practical. Just abstract theory.

[Robert Fischer]

i don't believe in these types of systems

[thaskalos]

Something like this.. Of course instead of both winning, we might workout some kind of a different execution if we can bet our horse in the second position on the exactas, maintaining a similar rate..

Do you think you can go way with less risk?
These parlay systems may have their place in the game...but I wouldn't recommend that the $200 bettor engage in them. A $10,000 bankroll is considered sizeable. It offers options to the bettor...and it also deserves respect. The truth is that only a tiny minority of the bettors ever get to the level where they regularly wager $200 on a horse...and the talk of cavalierly raising the bet to $1,200 on a particular horse simply defies logic...IMO. I know that some people consider parlays to be some sort of "leverage", where, in your example, a $4,800 profit is sought with only a $200 out-of-pocket investment...but there are TWO ways of looking at this scenario. The guy with the $10,000 bankroll sees his bankroll rise to $11,000 after the first 5/1 winner...and that's a 10% bankroll increase, after only one race! If he turns around and bets $1,200 to win on the next horse...then he is betting 11% of his bankroll on a single horse...and that can hardly be considered prudent. Yes, he"ll argue that, since his first bet won, he is now taking this shot mainly with the "track's money"...but I don't subscribe to thinking of that sort. Once the money gets in MY pocket...then I consider it MINE, and I treat it as such.

Take a shot with a short bankroll all you want...and you"ll get no argument from me. But $10,000 isn't a short bankroll. A $200 bet on a 5/1 winner earns you a $1,000...and most people would consider that a good week's pay. A horseplayer has to RESPECT a $1,000 daily profit...he can't afford to view it with disdain. This is a tough game...

[traynor]

Yes, what type of bet(s) are those who claim to be using target betting using? Is it win, place, show, exactas, or some form of exotics? No mention of the practical. Just abstract theory.

It doesn't matter what type of bet. Bottom line is that a real world positive ROI is necessary, not some rainbow-chaser fantasy based on backfitting to a small sample to "locate" positive returns. Unless you have a real world positive ROI (clean data, meaningful sample size, well tested, and "normally distributed"), no further discussion on money management is going to make the least bit of difference, other than "bet small, bet infrequently, and try to wean yourself from betting completely." That is practical. No abstract theory.

[Robert Fischer]

If you are the rare elite player who somehow has a positive ROI, there's really no sense in using a due column or parlay. Even positive-expectation-Win-Betting is no guarantee free from peaks and valleys that come with natural results.

If you are like myself and don't have a positive ROI, it's probably not a good idea either.


If you have a good understanding of what such money-management systems actually leverage (and at what expense), and you make a conscious decision to "gamble", and you are perfectly fine with that, -then you can play along and try to get lucky with a hyper-aggressive type of strategy.

[traynor]

If you are the rare elite player who somehow has a positive ROI, there's really no sense in using a due column or parlay. Even positive-expectation-Win-Betting is no guarantee free from peaks and valleys that come with natural results.

If you are like myself and don't have a positive ROI, it's probably not a good idea either.


If you have a good understanding of what such money-management systems actually leverage (and at what expense), and you make a conscious decision to "gamble", and you are perfectly fine with that, -then you can play along and try to get lucky with a hyper-aggressive type of strategy.

"Rare elite player" is something I have never encountered. The same goes for hyper-aggressive. Agressive? Absolutely. Hard-nose, no-nonsense, all-business, never-mind-that-drivel-about-sport-or-recreation? Absolutely.

I have encountered an ample number of aggressive, business-like bettors who have, have had, and will most likely continue to have, a healthy positive ROI. Most of that group I encountered, associated with, and became friends with during a graduate program in business management. None (to the best of my knowledge) equates it with tilting at windmills, finding The Answer to the Great Pari-Mutuel Riddle, or anything remotely like it. It is just another way to make money.

I have a very difficult time trying to imagine what motivation would lead a person to bet--some for years and years--while losing money. If it were not for the money, what would anyone even care about races, much less bet on them?

The best thing about due column and similar money management strategies is that they VERY quickly weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies. I think that is why so many avoid them like the plague--including those who believe they are "winners."

[Light]

It doesn't matter what type of bet. Bottom line is that a real world positive ROI is necessary, not some rainbow-chaser fantasy based on backfitting to a small sample to "locate" positive returns. Unless you have a real world positive ROI (clean data, meaningful sample size, well tested, and "normally distributed"), no further discussion on money management is going to make the least bit of difference, other than "bet small, bet infrequently, and try to wean yourself from betting completely." That is practical. No abstract theory.

To me, this response is more abstract theory or "doubletalk". If you actually use target betting, you must have structure. You can't use any type of bet that comes to your whim. You can't say, I want to make $100 today. Let's see, I'll bet an exacta here and a pk3 there. That's not "Target betting". That's what everyone does. That has no structure or strategy. The fact that you don't say what type of bet you use for "target betting", just confirms that you are simply "theorizing" on "target betting", but don't actually use it. And I don't mean "you" as the only "theorist" here.

[thaskalos]

"Rare elite player" is something I have never encountered. The same goes for hyper-aggressive. Agressive? Absolutely. Hard-nose, no-nonsense, all-business, never-mind-that-drivel-about-sport-or-recreation? Absolutely.

I have encountered an ample number of aggressive, business-like bettors who have, have had, and will most likely continue to have, a healthy positive ROI. Most of that group I encountered, associated with, and became friends with during a graduate program in business management. None (to the best of my knowledge) equates it with tilting at windmills, finding The Answer to the Great Pari-Mutuel Riddle, or anything remotely like it. It is just another way to make money.

I have a very difficult time trying to imagine what motivation would lead a person to bet--some for years and years--while losing money. If it were not for the money, what would anyone even care about races, much less bet on them?

The best thing about due column and similar money management strategies is that they VERY quickly weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies. I think that is why so many avoid them like the plague--including those who believe they are "winners."

You mean to tell me that the bettor who makes flat-bets instead of using a due column, may spend years deluding himself that he is a winner...when he is really a loser? How can that be? What is it that makes the due columns and the parlays the "reality check" that you portray them to be?

I think losing (and winning) in gambling is pretty unambiguous. The loser may mislead OTHERS about his status as a player...but he'll have a hard time convincing HIMSELF that he is a winner...when he is really a loser. We can PRETEND that we win at the track...but we are sure to run into considerable trouble if we actually go out and try to spend our "pretend" winnings.

[Robert Fischer]

The best thing about due column and similar money management strategies is that they VERY quickly weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies. I think that is why so many avoid them like the plague--including those who believe they are "winners."

There simply isn't a lot of justification for using something like a due column system if you are good enough to be profitable.

You are essentially over-betting your bankroll. You are increasing risk of failure in exchange for faster returns.

Much wiser to bet a kelly-based amount(or similar) that you know to be both safe while not leaving a bunch of money on the table.

[traynor]

There simply isn't a lot of justification for using something like a due column system if you are good enough to be profitable.

You are essentially over-betting your bankroll. You are increasing risk of failure in exchange for faster returns.

Much wiser to bet a kelly-based amount(or similar) that you know to be both safe while not leaving a bunch of money on the table.

I could not disagree more. Life--and everything in it--is transitory. When the profit is available, take it. If you don't, someone else will. None of it is going to last forever. If you want to be safe, don't bet.

The greatest hindrance to making a profit from wagering on horse races is the attempt to only make safe bets. (The second greatest hindrance is probably betting on unsafe bets, but that is another story.) Seriously. Horse racing is dynamic--it changes. If you have something that is profitable, leverage it as much and as fast as you can, because someone else is going to find the same thing and milk the cash cow dry.

[traynor]

You mean to tell me that the bettor who makes flat-bets instead of using a due column, may spend years deluding himself that he is a winner...when he is really a loser? How can that be? What is it that makes the due columns and the parlays the "reality check" that you portray them to be?

I think losing (and winning) in gambling is pretty unambiguous. The loser may mislead OTHERS about his status as a player...but he'll have a hard time convincing HIMSELF that he is a winner...when he is really a loser. We can PRETEND that we win at the track...but we are sure to run into considerable trouble if we actually go out and try to spend our "pretend" winnings.

Pretty simple stuff. If one has a (slightly) negative or (approximately) even ROI over time (or has deep pockets and other resources) flat betting or percentage of bankroll will extend that person's "ability to play" for a considerable time. Especially for those wagering "significant amounts" and enjoying generous rebates.

Try a progressive wagering strategy with a negative or break-even ROI, and the shortcomings become obvious quite quickly.

I think you may be mistaken about how (many or most) bettors perceive their activity. I know people who are so far in the red that if daddy didn't run a chaebol they would be out on the street--yet declare themselves to be "about even" or "a little ahead." Not to me (because I don't care) but rather to themselves. That positive thinking stuff can be costly.

[thaskalos]

Pretty simple stuff. If one has a (slightly) negative or (approximately) even ROI over time (or has deep pockets and other resources) flat betting or percentage of bankroll will extend that person's "ability to play" for a considerable time. Especially for those wagering "significant amounts" and enjoying generous rebates.

Try a progressive wagering strategy with a negative or break-even ROI, and the shortcomings become obvious quite quickly.

I think you may be mistaken about how (many or most) bettors perceive their activity. I know people who are so far in the red that if daddy didn't run a chaebol they would be out on the street--yet declare themselves to be "about even" or "a little ahead." Not to me (because I don't care) but rather to themselves. That positive thinking stuff can be costly.

I have found the opposite to be true. The due columns and the progressions sometimes give the illusion of profitability...simply because the winning days greatly outnumber the losing ones. The bettor can deceive himself for a considerable time...until the disastrous (and inevitable) losing streak comes along, and brings him back to reality.

I am well acquainted with a gentleman who has gone from being the proud owner of two successful businesses and two paid-off apartment buildings, to living in a friend's basement, with no possessions other than the clothes on his back...all as a result of his horse-betting addiction. Ask him how he has done at the track during his gambling life...and he'll tell you that he is still slightly ahead. I listen to him...and I am convinced that it's just a story that he likes to tell others...in order to avoid the further inquiries that a different answer might lead to. I am pretty sure that he is well-aware of the reasons for his financial demise...

[traynor]

I have found the opposite to be true. The due columns and the progressions sometimes give the illusion of profitability...simply because the winning days greatly outnumber the losing ones. The bettor can deceive himself for a considerable time...until the disastrous (and inevitable) losing streak comes along, and brings him back to reality.

I am well acquainted with a gentleman who has gone from being the proud owner of two successful businesses and two paid-off apartment buildings, to living in a friend's basement, with no possessions other than the clothes on his back...all as a result of his horse-betting addiction. Ask him how he has done at the track during his gambling life...and he'll tell you that he is still slightly ahead. I listen to him...and I am convinced that it's just a story that he likes to tell others...in order to avoid the further inquiries that a different answer might lead to. I am pretty sure that he is well-aware of the reasons for his financial demise...

Don't misinterpret my intention. I am not recommending progressive wagering. I am recommendig a cold, hard look at what one is actually doing, and--if it is not profitable--to either improve the strategy or back off on wagering. I have seen quite a few people who wager, but not too many who wager skillfully enough to be considered "successful bettors." Of that not too many, most seem to aggressively pursue optimal profits. Conversely, the ones who are not doing as well tend to seek continued betting (rather than profit) as their goal. Slight (in percentages) losses or minimal wins are considered "winning strategies" because they enable continued betting. Flat betting and percentage of bankroll (and various similar schemes) tend to prevail.

It is not so much that I consider what they are doing "wrong" as that I think they could do much better if they were a bit more honest with themselves about just how well they are actually doing. If it's broke, fix it. The Arthur Anderson School of Creative Accounting thrives in the "records" of many bettors.

[traynor]

Due column (or other progressive wagering strategies) only work when the ROI is real--not wishful thinking based on best case scenarios, small samples, backfitting, and complete avoidance of the most basic processes of data cleaning. Attempting such a wagering strategy without that "real ROI" is a recipe for disaster. So is using flat bets or percentage of bankroll with that same deficient strategy--it just takes longer for disaster to strike.


I think a lot of bettors could improve theri return by objectively evaluating their present methods--and, if deficient in the profit area--improving them. Believing something profitable that is not so is harmful. It also destroys any motivation to improve it.

[traynor]

I have found the opposite to be true. The due columns and the progressions sometimes give the illusion of profitability...simply because the winning days greatly outnumber the losing ones. The bettor can deceive himself for a considerable time...until the disastrous (and inevitable) losing streak comes along, and brings him back to reality.

I am well acquainted with a gentleman who has gone from being the proud owner of two successful businesses and two paid-off apartment buildings, to living in a friend's basement, with no possessions other than the clothes on his back...all as a result of his horse-betting addiction. Ask him how he has done at the track during his gambling life...and he'll tell you that he is still slightly ahead. I listen to him...and I am convinced that it's just a story that he likes to tell others...in order to avoid the further inquiries that a different answer might lead to. I am pretty sure that he is well-aware of the reasons for his financial demise...

Or thoroughly convinced that one "big score" is all it will take to set everything right. No matter how deep one is in, that "life changing score" still shines brightly, lighting the way even further into lala land.

I think most people are far more adept at fooling themselves than they are at fooling others. I think most of those others are a lot like me--they don't really care. Most efforts at "impression management" are for self-benefit, to prop up a self-image otherwise in danger of collapse.

[romankoz]

I am sorry but I am not sure what you mean by EV. When I know that I will reply with more depth.

[romankoz]

Depends on the number of races. If it's one meeting, say nine races, the objective using one hundred dollars is 0.10c per race or $0.90 for the day.

[thaskalos]

Or thoroughly convinced that one "big score" is all it will take to set everything right. No matter how deep one is in, that "life changing score" still shines brightly, lighting the way even further into lala land.

I think most people are far more adept at fooling themselves than they are at fooling others. I think most of those others are a lot like me--they don't really care. Most efforts at "impression management" are for self-benefit, to prop up a self-image otherwise in danger of collapse.
Hope remains in the heart...even when all else is lost. It's a self-preservation mechanism, I think. We need some sort of "hope" in order to keep going during the tough times. But hope isn't the same as self-delusion, IMO. The losing horseplayer who is expecting things to improve in his financial life is being "normal", as I see it...while the habitual loser who truly considers himself a "winner" is exhibiting the sort of behavior which allows psychiatrists to drive around in Rolls Royces.

[romankoz]

It seems my original posting is heading away from where I am at. I have read all the plus and minus issues against target betting over the years where the mathematicians say "you cannot win on a progressive staking plan like target betting" if you do not show a positive ROI. I am the first to say if your LOT (Loss On Turnover) is too high, say 10%, you have little hope if any betting progressively and, of course, you should not be betting.

What I will suggest is if you show a small loss of say 2-3% ROI you have a chance of getting in front on a series of bets by betting progressively BUT you will fail if there is no correlation between the bank, the amount sought per race, the divisor in relation to your mode price range (it needs to be a high mode range) and a cut off point where you accept a profit less than the sought amount of say 10%: it can be more but I believe 10% is fine. It's a profit.

So what do I mean.

If I am seeking $0.10 per race and 90% of my bets are prices akin to prices of the average favourite (I have seen studies that suggests this is around 6/4 or $5 USA) my divisor should be about twice the 6/4 figure at 3/1.No particular maths involved: just a gut feel figure. From there you seek your $0.10 per race plus previous losses always dividing by 3 unless you have 10% situation where you really, really fancy something outside of your 90% mode range and you divide by the price received when higher than 3.
Now I am assuming you can select proper winning or placing chances (place being 1-2-3 spots in Oz),and you run of outs is minimal and you either win a small ROI, break square or show a minor losing ROI. SOmewhere along the line you MUST come good and the question for the target bettor doubters is where is "somewhere" and I follow that, of course. If you are dividing by 3 and that winner arrive at 2/1 it's almost certain you have cleared past losses and are actually ahead on a series of bets but you will not be ahead by the total desired amount. If you are 10% or more ahead in the series accept the profit and start again. In a previous posting suggested seeking 1/1000 of your bank as the target but why not make it 1/2000 hence to seek $.10 per race you need a bank of $200.
Now, seriously, is anyone on this list who is a small ROI loser, going to tell me that seeking $0.10 per race on a $200 bank by target betting is not within their reach.
The flat stake bettors might suggest you bet 5% of your bank thus on $200 = $4 and over time you will lose say 2% or $0.08c x 100 = $8 on every 100 bets. How boring? I would rather try and win $0.10 per race target betting knowing I have a CHANCE of winning and turning the 2% losing ROI into a profit with minimal raising of stakes as opposed to a guaranteed flat stake loss.
Before anybody suggests $0.10 as a bit of a joke keep in mind it's an example figure.
Anyhow, it's my opinion a small bettor, and let's face it $200 is small, is far better off having a go target betting than flat staking or any equivalents like betting to prices.
Can I suggest anyone who doesn't like target betting just has a play with some ball park figures with bad runs making sure there is a small ROI loss flat stake. Then have a play with my ideas and see what you think. Now I know someone will say ok I have written a list which has 20 losers followed by 19 collects at 1/1 thus is showing a small ROI loss. My bank went bust on that scenario, they could and would say. Well, of course it would but I would counter that with if you are that bad as a tipster take up knitting. That sort of nonsense is like the simulations I have read about. Yes, mathematically over 1000 bets you can have 500 straight losers followed by 500 straight collects at 1/1 but dead set is that actually something you would offer about horseracing where judgement on form study comes into the equation.
I will use one wild example. If American Paharoah started 1/1 in 100 races would you really expect him to lose 50 in a row. Come on!
Remember I am suggesting this for the small bettor.If you bet big, show a positive ROI keep going your way, for sure.
Sorry, it's a long posting but I keep typing when I am on a roll.

[lansdale]

Darn, I just lost a posting so here goes again. I will shorten this one

After many years of tinkering with target betting I have come to realise you need to
a) make your objective per race a minimum of 1000 times the race objective and 2000 is even safer. Depends on your selecting history how confident you are.
b) the divisor must be commensurate to the odds of the horses in your betting price range, that is, it is silly to have a divisor of 3 if many of your selections are more than double the divisor figure.
c) to keep the run of outs down be prepared to mix win and place (in Oz place includes is part of one pool not two pools like your place and show)
d) be prepared to stop chasing if in any series you are X% ROI ahead pull the pin, take the profit on the series and start another.

How you keep the runs of outs down is dependent on how good a selector you are and making sure you actually feel strongly about the selection and the odds available. There are many races where the place bet has a stronger chance to get you a collect, at sensible odds, than a win bet when compared to one another.

Selection wise I like well fancied horses suited at the distance, track conditions, actual track and who can lead or sit on the pace most times.

Can you understand why, for the 99.9% of horserace handicappers who are long-term losers, this might not work? The only result for them would that they lose their money much faster. There is no such thing as short-term positive ROI - either you have a long-term edge (years of successful play) or not. Belief in the efficacy of any kind of progressive betting method is the mark of deluded, losing gamblers since time immemorial. If you don't believe me, call the math dept. of a local college and give them a laugh by reading your post. You may think I'm being harsh here, but I'm really trying to give you and any another, likely youthful sucker who reads this a break.

[Dave Schwartz]

What I will suggest is if you show a small loss of say 2-3% ROI you have a chance of getting in front on a series of bets by betting progressively BUT you will fail if there is no correlation between the bank, the amount sought per race, the divisor in relation to your mode price range (it needs to be a high mode range) and a cut off point where you accept a profit less than the sought amount of say 10%: it can be more but I believe 10% is fine. It's a profit.

What you stated above (the bold part) sounds a lot like "If I am just a small mathematical loser, I can make this work."

Alas, nothing could be farther from the truth.

If this would work, why not just take it to the casino and chase the money on pass line bets at the crap table? That relatively minuscule negative expectancy will get you in the LONG RUN.

How long is the long run? Perhaps someone here can work that out for you, but my point is WITH A NEGATIVE EXPECTANCY YOU WILL LOSE.


Now, you can pretend that it won't matter and play, winning most days, depending upon how hard you chase. But there will be a comeuppance. You will pay it all back and more.

That is why casinos stay in business year after year.

[Overlay]

I am sorry but I am not sure what you mean by EV. When I know that I will reply with more depth.
EV = Expected Value (the expected frequency of occurrence of an event over a "long-run" series of trials). For example, the expected value of specifically getting "heads" on any one flip of a fair coin would be .5.). (Half the time you'd get heads, and half the time you wouldn't.)

If there is a payout of some kind associated with wagering on the outcome of an event, the expected value determines the "fair odds" connected with the wager. In the case of the coin flip, "fair odds" would be a payoff at odds of 1-1 every time you were right. For example, you bet $1.00, you get $2.00 back (your original dollar, plus a dollar profit). Any payoff less than "fair odds" would give an edge to whoever was offering the odds that you were accepting on the event.

Contributors to the thread are making the point that there is no way that any method of betting (including progression) can turn a wager that has a negative expected value into one that has a positive expected value.

[Robert Fischer]

I could not disagree more. Life--and everything in it--is transitory. When the profit is available, take it. If you don't, someone else will. None of it is going to last forever. If you want to be safe, don't bet.

The greatest hindrance to making a profit from wagering on horse races is the attempt to only make safe bets. (The second greatest hindrance is probably betting on unsafe bets, but that is another story.) Seriously. Horse racing is dynamic--it changes. If you have something that is profitable, leverage it as much and as fast as you can, because someone else is going to find the same thing and milk the cash cow dry.

A Kelly or kelly-like approach is about making optimum bets, not safe bets.

If you get 'greedy' in any market environment and wager a greater percentage of your bankroll than the wager calls, you are headed for ruin. There's no way around it. Eventually it will ruin or crush your bankroll.

I'm honestly surprised to see serious debate on topics like wager-size. Some things appear to me to have "right or wrong" answers, lying outside of the realm of the subjective.

With any kind of serious horse race wagering you want a bet-size that is:
1. A percent of your bankroll, so that you grow exponentially.
2. Low enough to minimize risk of ruin.
3. High enough that you aren't needlessly leaving a lot of money on the table.

However, if you are gambling, it doesn't really matter, and some of the betting systems can be fun, and even provide a short term profit with a little good fortune.

[ReplayRandall]

Romankoz, Horseplayers and gamblers have been using systematic betting approaches for eons. Take the time to read this 13 year old thread, as I'm thinking you may a lot in common with the posters from this site:

http://www.majorwager.com/forums/handicapping-think-tank/105040-century-system-money-management.html

[traynor]

Hope remains in the heart...even when all else is lost. It's a self-preservation mechanism, I think. We need some sort of "hope" in order to keep going during the tough times. But hope isn't the same as self-delusion, IMO. The losing horseplayer who is expecting things to improve in his financial life is being "normal", as I see it...while the habitual loser who truly considers himself a "winner" is exhibiting the sort of behavior which allows psychiatrists to drive around in Rolls Royces.

The question would then be, is "hope" based on illusion or reality? One can always "hope" to find some whatever, and never even come close to such. One could say the "hope" drives the search.

However, a high-degree of self-efficacy does not include "hope" (as the word is normally understood) as motivation. Rather than searching for solutions elsewhere, one tends to create one's own solutions. It is a different conceptual paradigm--one still searches, but for different things, and for different motives.

Think of Liam Neeson's decision after beseeching for a sign of heavenly intervention (perhaps filled with "hope" that such would come just in the nick of time) in The Grey. That is not a case of "all hope being gone." It is a case of "If it is going to get done, I am the only one who is going to do it."

[traynor]

If you are the rare elite player who somehow has a positive ROI, there's really no sense in using a due column or parlay. Even positive-expectation-Win-Betting is no guarantee free from peaks and valleys that come with natural results.

If you are like myself and don't have a positive ROI, it's probably not a good idea either.


If you have a good understanding of what such money-management systems actually leverage (and at what expense), and you make a conscious decision to "gamble", and you are perfectly fine with that, -then you can play along and try to get lucky with a hyper-aggressive type of strategy.

I think you make my point quite eloquently in your statement above.

[thaskalos]

The question would then be, is "hope" based on illusion or reality? One can always "hope" to find some whatever, and never even come close to such. One could say the "hope" drives the search.

However, a high-degree of self-efficacy does not include "hope" (as the word is normally understood) as motivation. Rather than searching for solutions elsewhere, one tends to create one's own solutions. It is a different conceptual paradigm--one still searches, but for different things, and for different motives.

Think of Liam Neeson's decision after beseeching for a sign of heavenly intervention (perhaps filled with "hope" that such would come just in the nick of time) in The Grey. That is not a case of "all hope being gone." It is a case of "If it is going to get done, I am the only one who is going to do it."
Hope is always at least partially based on illusion...IMO. If it were based on "reality", then we wouldn't call it "hoping". We'd call it PLANNING.

I tend to lean toward the PESSIMISTIC side, myself...with a healthy dose of paranoia mixed in, for good measure. It may not make me the "life of the party"...but I think it's served me pretty well in my gambling voyage. Daydreaming doesn't seem to be a serviceable attribute for a gambler...in my opinion anyway.

[Robert Fischer]

I think you make my point quite eloquently in your statement above.
Humor aside, we seem to be far apart on some of the more fundamental aspects of bet sizing.

[Magister Ludi]

Prerequisite: high school algebra

The following is proof of the fallacy of a progression in an unfair game with an even payoff. It can be easily adapted to the case of an uneven payoff.

Let

b_k = bet value at the kth level
p_k = probability that series terminates with a win at the kth level, having been preceded by k-1 losses in a row
n - 1 = greatest number of losses in a row that can be sustained
e = player's expectation

e = + p_1b_1 + p_2(b_2 - b_1) + p_3(b_3 - b_2 - b_1) +...
+ p_n(b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)
+ (1 - p_1 - p_2-...
- p_n)(-b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)

The terms on the first line represent products of the probability that the series will terminate with a win at each successive level times the net profit at that level. The term on the third line gives the product of the probability that the series ends in failure at the nth level times the net loss.

regroup the terms:

e = 2p_1b_1 + (2p_2 + p_1)b_2 + (2p_3 + p_2 + p_1)b_3 + ...
+ (2p_n + p_(n-1) + ... + p_2 + p_1)b_n
- (b_1 + b_2 + ... + b_(n-1) + b_n)

p_k = (1 - p)^(k-1)p, where p is the probability of a win on any individual play and 1 - p is the probability of a loss.

substituting:

e = [2p]b_1 + [2p(1 - p) + p]b_2 + [2p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p) + p]b_3 + ...
+ [2p(1 - p)^(n-1) + p(1 - p)^(n-2) + ... + p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p)^1
+ p(1 - p)^0]b_n - (b_1 + b_2 + ... b_(n-1) + b_n)

factor out p so that the kth term is rewritten as:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-2) + ... + (1 - p)^2
+ (1 - p)^1 + (1 - p)^0]b_k

use the formula for the sum of a geometric series and rewrite the kth term:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (((1 - p)^k - 1)/((1 - p) - 1))]b_k
= [(2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k

e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k
e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1)b_k + sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k

cancel the last two summations and factor out (2p - 1):

e = (2p - 1) sum_{k = 1}^{n} (1 - p)^(k-1)b_k

Since (1 - p) is positive and b_k is positive, the summation is positive. Therefore, the sign of e depends on the sign of (2p - 1). In an even-payoff unfair game, p < .5 and (2p - 1) is negative. In a fair game, p = .5 and (2p - 1) = 0.

[DeltaLover]

Prerequisite: high school algebra

The following is proof of the fallacy of a progression in an unfair game with an even payoff. It can be easily adapted to the case of an uneven payoff.

Let

b_k = bet value at the kth level
p_k = probability that series terminates with a win at the kth level, having been preceded by k-1 losses in a row
n - 1 = greatest number of losses in a row that can be sustained
e = player's expectation

e = + p_1b_1 + p_2(b_2 - b_1) + p_3(b_3 - b_2 - b_1) +...
+ p_n(b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)
+ (1 - p_1 - p_2-...
- p_n)(-b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)

The terms on the first line represent products of the probability that the series will terminate with a win at each successive level times the net profit at that level. The term on the third line gives the product of the probability that the series ends in failure at the nth level times the net loss.

regroup the terms:

e = 2p_1b_1 + (2p_2 + p_1)b_2 + (2p_3 + p_2 + p_1)b_3 + ...
+ (2p_n + p_(n-1) + ... + p_2 + p_1)b_n
- (b_1 + b_2 + ... + b_(n-1) + b_n)

p_k = (1 - p)^(k-1)p, where p is the probability of a win on any individual play and 1 - p is the probability of a loss.

substituting:

e = [2p]b_1 + [2p(1 - p) + p]b_2 + [2p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p) + p]b_3 + ...
+ [2p(1 - p)^(n-1) + p(1 - p)^(n-2) + ... + p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p)^1
+ p(1 - p)^0]b_n - (b_1 + b_2 + ... b_(n-1) + b_n)

factor out p so that the kth term is rewritten as:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-2) + ... + (1 - p)^2
+ (1 - p)^1 + (1 - p)^0]b_k

use the formula for the sum of a geometric series and rewrite the kth term:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (((1 - p)^k - 1)/((1 - p) - 1))]b_k
= [(2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k

e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k
e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1)b_k + sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k

cancel the last two summations and factor out (2p - 1):

e = (2p - 1) sum_{k = 1}^{n} (1 - p)^(k-1)b_k

Since (1 - p) is positive and b_k is positive, the summation is positive. Therefore, the sign of e depends on the sign of (2p - 1). In an even-payoff unfair game, p < .5 and (2p - 1) is negative. In a fair game, p = .5 and (2p - 1) = 0.

Wow!

Every one in this forum should now be really impressed!

This is so impressive and original..

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[traynor]

Hope is always at least partially based on illusion...IMO. If it were based on "reality", then we wouldn't call it "hoping". We'd call it PLANNING.

I tend to lean toward the PESSIMISTIC side, myself...with a healthy dose of paranoia mixed in, for good measure. It may not make me the "life of the party"...but I think it's served me pretty well in my gambling voyage. Daydreaming doesn't seem to be a serviceable attribute for a gambler...in my opinion anyway.

Absolute agreement. I think the greatest hindrance (for most bettors) to making a profit is a self-induced delusion derived from "positive thinking." Reality is pretty neat once one understands it. Once one understands what one has to work with, finding useful solutions becomes MUCH easier.

[traynor]

Humor aside, we seem to be far apart on some of the more fundamental aspects of bet sizing.

With a negative ROI, the optimal wagering strategy is "none of the above." As in, "don't bet."

[traynor]

The following is proof of the fallacy of a progression in an unfair game with an even payoff. It can be easily adapted to the case of an uneven payoff.


What does that have to do with horse racing?

[traynor]

It is not that self-delusion in regard to real world ROI is "wrong." It is that pretending something is not broken does nothing to fix it. Attempts to fix it, or to even consider fixing it, are "resisted" because they threaten the maintenance of the illusion. The "positive thinking" becomes self-destructive and self-defeating.

Festinger opened it for all to see with his research in cognitive dissonance.

[Robert Fischer]

With a negative ROI, the optimal wagering strategy is "none of the above." As in, "don't bet."

There seems to be some sort of 'communication barrier' at play.

It is disappointing that we could not engage in a discussion.

[ReplayRandall]

The following is proof of the fallacy of a progression in an unfair game with an even payoff. It can be easily adapted to the case of an uneven payoff.
Magister Ludi, your posts have officially hit rock-bottom, all credibility...gone. It's so bad, even Trifecta Mike won't bail you out with a supportive post.... :faint:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Magister Ludi, your posts have officially hit rock-bottom, all credibility...gone. It's so bad, even Trifecta Mike won't bail you out with a supportive post.... :faint:

...TM's just a log-in change away from the rescue

[DeltaLover]

Magister Ludi, your posts have officially hit rock-bottom, all credibility...gone. It's so bad, even Trifecta Mike won't bail you out with a supportive post.... :faint:

Obviously a ridiculous attempt to prove a self explained issue.

What is even worse, is the way he wrote it.. If you really want to impress by throwing around trivial math equations, you should at least have the ability to format them using latex or something similar, so they are readable without much effort..

[whodoyoulike]

...TM's just a log-in change away from the rescue

You may be attempting an inside joke here.

But, he may have just forgotten which handle he was using to log in.

But, I'm now waiting for the other guy to chime in that he's also saving this post? He must be up to what 61 pages by now. Or, maybe he's starting at one just for him.

[traynor]

Obviously a ridiculous attempt to prove a self explained issue.

What is even worse, is the way he wrote it.. If you really want to impress by throwing around trivial math equations, you should at least have the ability to format them using latex or something similar, so they are readable without much effort..

There is an old saying, "If you can't convince them with logic, dazzle them with trivial math equations." Or something like that.

[romankoz]

Hi Dave,
There is no point bringing roulette or craps or any other similar betting "thing" into the discussion because it's like comparing apples and oranges. Both are round and enjoyable to eat but the tastes are different.

There is NO way I would be target betting at a casino. The machine will win and the run of outs can be astronomical even at 1/1. Every bet at a casino is independent of previous bets because there is no form. I look at it this way. If I have five losers in a row at 1/1 in roulette I have no confidence my next collect will come soon. If I have five losers at 1/1 at horseracing I am confident my winner will come soon because I know my selections aren't that bad for too long. That doesn't mean I go the silly all up path though.

I guess in the long term there is always disagreement about staking plans. The professional advocate flat stakes or betting to chances because they win a positive ROI however to make a living they have to bet with more guts than I have. If you can make a positive ROI then there is no need to create a staking plan.The roughly break square bettors which can be many have to decide whether they bet for fun with miniscule amounts or even bother. Over the years I have fitted this bill as I am keen but I have no llusions about being any sort of professional so I am happy to play with target betting or bet as I see fit.It will never cost me anything worth worrying about if I lose and vice versa I won't be retiring on any profits either. It's as I have come to realise it is more the maths side of things and the involvement I enjoy.

[romankoz]

Wow, a 13 yo thread!
Thanks, I will have a look.

[lansdale]

Prerequisite: high school algebra

The following is proof of the fallacy of a progression in an unfair game with an even payoff. It can be easily adapted to the case of an uneven payoff.

Let

b_k = bet value at the kth level
p_k = probability that series terminates with a win at the kth level, having been preceded by k-1 losses in a row
n - 1 = greatest number of losses in a row that can be sustained
e = player's expectation

e = + p_1b_1 + p_2(b_2 - b_1) + p_3(b_3 - b_2 - b_1) +...
+ p_n(b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)
+ (1 - p_1 - p_2-...
- p_n)(-b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)

The terms on the first line represent products of the probability that the series will terminate with a win at each successive level times the net profit at that level. The term on the third line gives the product of the probability that the series ends in failure at the nth level times the net loss.

regroup the terms:

e = 2p_1b_1 + (2p_2 + p_1)b_2 + (2p_3 + p_2 + p_1)b_3 + ...
+ (2p_n + p_(n-1) + ... + p_2 + p_1)b_n
- (b_1 + b_2 + ... + b_(n-1) + b_n)

p_k = (1 - p)^(k-1)p, where p is the probability of a win on any individual play and 1 - p is the probability of a loss.

substituting:

e = [2p]b_1 + [2p(1 - p) + p]b_2 + [2p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p) + p]b_3 + ...
+ [2p(1 - p)^(n-1) + p(1 - p)^(n-2) + ... + p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p)^1
+ p(1 - p)^0]b_n - (b_1 + b_2 + ... b_(n-1) + b_n)

factor out p so that the kth term is rewritten as:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-2) + ... + (1 - p)^2
+ (1 - p)^1 + (1 - p)^0]b_k

use the formula for the sum of a geometric series and rewrite the kth term:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (((1 - p)^k - 1)/((1 - p) - 1))]b_k
= [(2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k

e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k
e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1)b_k + sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k

cancel the last two summations and factor out (2p - 1):

e = (2p - 1) sum_{k = 1}^{n} (1 - p)^(k-1)b_k

Since (1 - p) is positive and b_k is positive, the summation is positive. Therefore, the sign of e depends on the sign of (2p - 1). In an even-payoff unfair game, p < .5 and (2p - 1) is negative. In a fair game, p = .5 and (2p - 1) = 0.

Hi ML,

Much thanks for posting. Although, as i've said, I'm no math guy I did e-mail it to my gambling-math consultant who confirmed its validity, although, as you know better than most, its truth has long since been proven.

Re the childishness of some of the responses to this post - they seem not be aware that you're laughing all the way to the bank.

Best,

lansdale

[ultracapper]

Wow!

Every one in this forum should now be really impressed!

This is so impressive and original..

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Did he win today?

[ultracapper]

Hi ML,

Much thanks for posting. Although, as i've said, I'm no math guy I did e-mail it to my gambling-math consultant who confirmed its validity, although, as you know better than most, its truth has long since been proven.

Re the childishness of some of the responses to this post - they seem not be aware that you're laughing all the way to the bank.

Best,

lansdale

He's laughing all the way to the bank because he can type out a, what did he call it?, high school algebra equation? Or is he laughing all the way to the bank because all that typing lead him to the winner in the 3rd at Belmont today? Help me here. High school algebra is just way up there for me.

[raybo]

Probably not prudent to post in this thread, but I followed it without posting because I only have my own experiences (and common sense) from which to draw, little formal education and no formal statistics education at all, to support my statements regarding "progressive betting". The one I am familiar with, somewhat, is "due column" betting. In this one the bettor assumes that he/she will "eventually" win a bet, at an adequate sized bet to erase all his previous losses and make some degree of profit, or at least significantly erase previous losses, to allow continuation of the method until it becomes profitable.

If one does the calculations, starting at a $2 bet, one quickly realizes that after only 8 consecutive losses one would have to bet $384 on the 9th bet, just to erase the 8 previous losses (I think anyway). I don't know what hit rate those 8 consecutive losses relates to, but it's probably pretty high. Also, every player's short term hit rate will vary, considerably, it might be 50% one day and 0% the next, then 20% the next and 35% the next, etc.. Based on that fact, and I can't imagine it being any other way, in horse racing, one could expect that one would reach points at which one's bankroll is insufficient to support the next wager or two, without depositing new money into the bankroll. And who's to say that the next few days wouldn't be even worse? Sure one might be fortunate enough to hit early and/or frequently and/or hit a large payout or two, but there is no guarantee any of that will happen, and even if it does, there is no guarantee that anything close to that will continue in the near future. And, in this type of system, "short term" is almost everything, unless you have lots of money to put at risk in order to reach the long term.

Possibly some one with a completely automated selection method, meaning no subjective input at all, "might" have a method that is extremely consistent, with very few, and very short losing streaks, but sooner or later it appears, something will go wrong, somewhere, and the player will find themselves in an untenable position. I suppose someone could get lucky and hit enough payouts, of enough size, to show periods of success, periods that might adequately support down periods, but I wouldn't bet on it myself.

Bottom line, IMO, is that if you cannot make a flat bet profit, over a lengthy period of time, one should not bet at all, much less try a progressive betting method similar to this. If one can make a flat bet profit over time, then why take unnecessary chances such as this? Just flat bet or use a conservative percentage of bankroll method, with stop-loss signals built in.

[seanm]

ML

thank you for your sterling efforts once again.

quality not quantity.

same result, but in contrast, i recall a very long time ago another mathematician (LL) , choosing a rather large simulation to demo his point on the australian racing forum AUSRACE.

LL even followed it up with a light hearted side bet, which he won i might add. (a series of live bets over a 1 year ? period).

cheers Sean

ps Roman your mate EJ would be smiling down .... the debate lives on :) .

[Robert Fischer]

Amazing how ego and passionate opinions can carry a thread like this like a runaway freight-train.

This is a very straight-forward type of concept with concrete fundamental principles.

I think that in some ways the behavior in here is part of the reason we don't have more people who want to break down the fundamental principles of different concepts.

Apparently(I don't claim to have a strong enough grasp of mathematics to be able to read Magister Ludi's post), but apparently even after he had to go and post the proof in math language, we still had consensus-rule.

With the prevalence of social media, opinions are at an all time high right now. As groups of humans, we tend to value opinions and consensus of opinion particularly high.

With opinions humans are very weak, because of the inability to distinguish things that have actual factual fundamental truths as a basis from things that are a free for all, and which there are no wrong answers.

Real life, and 'social life' become blurred. In many of or social interactions, 'social life' trumps real life. Things like celeb news, even politics,- they are all about opinions. There is no real event. There is nothing that actually happens that is governed by these factual fundamental truths. Even sports fandom and horse racing fandom are opinion-based.
The great thing about horse racing as a gambling game is that after we wait, and wait, for a race where we can see that a profitable systemic inefficiency is probable, we can then pay an exorbitant fee in order to make a positive expectation investment.. and then - an actual event happens. :D
If, over time we have a true understanding of the fundamental truths that govern those events, and that govern the markets, we will earn money from it and/or outperform the public.

So what does that have to do with opinions? Our society's overload of 'social' world leads to people simply going with opinions when we discuss things like this. And then the consensus of those opinions rules (typically the most popular, most repeated/aggressively posted opinion).

While Magister Ludi's answer(?) is not for everyone, and others who addressed the basic fundamental insights of why such a system does not work (in layman's terms), earlier in the thread, may not have caught on for whatever reason, - they do happen to be good examples of this phenomena.
This effect may be why we don't have more frequent discussions that break down disputed fundamental aspects of the game. Why mathematical proofs and logical explanations make rare (and often unwelcomed) appearances.

[raybo]

As I tried to describe in my post in this thread, "due column" betting, or raising your stake after losses only, might be viable under certain conditions, although I would not think of gambling real money in such a manner, especially the kind of money that would be required to make this successful.

Available funds, and a player, with or without partners, with the type of character traits that does not succumb to the angst of betting large sums, is the first prerequisite for such a journey. In other words you must view money, lots of it, as a tool only, with no psychological weaknesses related to risking it. (Few have what it takes for this unless they are already rich and/or have unlimited access to a constant high revenue stream from somewhere else)

Extreme consistency is the second prerequisite. As Traynor stated, it's not about the traditional meaning of "turnover" (based on gobs and gobs of races bet), but rather a high ratio of wins versus number of bets,his example was in the 30% to 40% range. (certainly possible, if one is patient, disciplined, and consistent enough, but most are not)

Decent prices is the third prerequisite (this includes the fact that one must have a long term positive ROI with flat betting). If one is getting good prices, the amount of money necessary to bet, in order to wipe away previous losses, is lower than if the price is lower. (possible, but with respect to the first prerequisite, not probable for most)

An entirely mechanical method, with constant monitoring and highly vetted tweaking, would probably work better than a method that includes subjective input (because we are humans and humans make mistakes and/or let their human attributes negatively affect their decision process from time to time).

Of course, pool sizes can restrict one's ability to wager the proper amount in individual bet events, so you either can't bet the amount you need to bet, or you lower the price you should have gotten.

So, even though it may be possible to succeed in this type of staking plan, it is highly doubtful that the vast majority of people could make this work, more than the number of normal losing players out there (98+% of all players), so even if you have a long term positive ROI (less than 2% of all players) you would probably not succeed in this endeavor.

In other words, the odds are dramatically against you.

[betovernetcapper]

In my youth, I experimented with the Martingale, Labouchère system, due column & you name it and long term I found them wanting.

Over the years I've found one angle that you might find interesting. I tend to sort of flat bet, with a range of $20 to $50, depending on the odds and my confidence in the outcome. Usually I'll bet half to win and half in the exotics.
If/when I'm having a bad day, instead of trying to recoup my losses in one bet, I wait for an exacta or double combination that

a.) I was going to include anyway
b.) is for some reason paying boxcars

In the above situation, I make my normal bets and then just throw a couple of extra dollars on the high paying combination. If I win and one of the other combos comes in great. If I lose, OK life goes on, I've lost my base bet plus $2/3 dollars. :sleeping: If the high paying combo comes in as it does on occasion, I've recouped my losses and am in the black. :jump:

I'm not saying that the situation comes up every day, but when it does, I try it.

[Cratos]

Prerequisite: high school algebra

The following is proof of the fallacy of a progression in an unfair game with an even payoff. It can be easily adapted to the case of an uneven payoff.

Let

b_k = bet value at the kth level
p_k = probability that series terminates with a win at the kth level, having been preceded by k-1 losses in a row
n - 1 = greatest number of losses in a row that can be sustained
e = player's expectation

e = + p_1b_1 + p_2(b_2 - b_1) + p_3(b_3 - b_2 - b_1) +...
+ p_n(b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)
+ (1 - p_1 - p_2-...
- p_n)(-b_n - b_(n-1) - ... - b_1)

The terms on the first line represent products of the probability that the series will terminate with a win at each successive level times the net profit at that level. The term on the third line gives the product of the probability that the series ends in failure at the nth level times the net loss.

regroup the terms:

e = 2p_1b_1 + (2p_2 + p_1)b_2 + (2p_3 + p_2 + p_1)b_3 + ...
+ (2p_n + p_(n-1) + ... + p_2 + p_1)b_n
- (b_1 + b_2 + ... + b_(n-1) + b_n)

p_k = (1 - p)^(k-1)p, where p is the probability of a win on any individual play and 1 - p is the probability of a loss.

substituting:

e = [2p]b_1 + [2p(1 - p) + p]b_2 + [2p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p) + p]b_3 + ...
+ [2p(1 - p)^(n-1) + p(1 - p)^(n-2) + ... + p(1 - p)^2 + p(1 - p)^1
+ p(1 - p)^0]b_n - (b_1 + b_2 + ... b_(n-1) + b_n)

factor out p so that the kth term is rewritten as:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-1) + (1 - p)^(k-2) + ... + (1 - p)^2
+ (1 - p)^1 + (1 - p)^0]b_k

use the formula for the sum of a geometric series and rewrite the kth term:

p[(1 - p)^(k-1) + (((1 - p)^k - 1)/((1 - p) - 1))]b_k
= [(2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k

e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1) + 1]b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k
e = sum_{k = 1}^{n} [2p - 1)(1 - p)^(k-1)b_k + sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k - sum_{k = 1}^{n} b_k

cancel the last two summations and factor out (2p - 1):

e = (2p - 1) sum_{k = 1}^{n} (1 - p)^(k-1)b_k

Since (1 - p) is positive and b_k is positive, the summation is positive. Therefore, the sign of e depends on the sign of (2p - 1). In an even-payoff unfair game, p < .5 and (2p - 1) is negative. In a fair game, p = .5 and (2p - 1) = 0.
In all due respect, your demonstrated explanation was just a way of sayings that if a fair coin is flipped n-times its outcome is expected to end up 50% heads and 50% tails using the Law of Large Numbers.

[garyscpa]

In all due respect, your demonstrated explanation was just a way of sayings that if a fair coin is flipped n-times its outcome is expected to end up 50% heads and 50% tails using the Law of Large Numbers.

He out-Cratos'ed you. :D

[Cratos]

He out-Cratos'ed you. :D
Not really if you read and understand the last sentence of his post.
It is the logic that I was addressing.

[garyscpa]

Not really if you read and understand the last sentence of his post.
It is the logic that I was addressing.

I think the others will understand.

[romankoz]

Hi Sean,
Yes, EJ would be smiling. I am sorry I don't remember you but perhaps an alias is at work.

I don't remember the experiment by LL but was it target betting? I know EJ and I did an experiment with a staking plan he called "The Missile" over 1400 bets based on the paper poll in "The Australian" newspaper. I have it somewhere on a memory stick, I think.

We thought 1400 bets was fairly realistic at about 8 races per Saturday but when it showed a profit all the mathematicians said 14000 would have been better. Naturally the word infinity came into discussion as that is always the fall back position for the mathematicians.

I always chuckled when it was said "you can never win on a staking plan if there is no Profit On Turnover (ROI)" as that was supposed to be absolute. Naturally when I said what about 1 unit profit on a million bets. That's a profit!

The silly doubling up, martingale, Labouchre etc plans are not what I am talking about.

I am about seeking a target (1 unit) and let's call the unit $0.10c betting on well fancied horses at 15/8 (US$5.80) and less for the win and at 2/1 (US $6) or longer for the place which is 1st 2nd and 3rd in Oz in most field sizes. The bank needs to be at least 1000 times the unit (for serious form students) but 2000 would be ultra safe, so that's a bank of $200 based on a minimum bet size of $0.50c. Use a divisor of 2. Here in OZ you can obtain the best odds of the three parimutel systems.

A safety brake of "when I have 10% POT on any series of bets I draw the line and start afresh" with a new series is a major key for operating this staking plan. The idea is profits albeit small ones add up.

A more confident selector, and I guess I am one of them, could drop the safety rule.

Forget the maths rules governing the world. Mathematically in a series of 100 bets I could have 50 losers followed by 50 collects at around the 1/1 mark or a tad less. Is there anyone who actually believes their selections would go that badly around 1/1 bets in ANY series of 100 bets in the HORSERACING WORLD??? Come on!

At roulette yes I would believe it - in horseracing, no way.

[Dave Schwartz]

Hi Dave,
There is no point bringing roulette or craps or any other similar betting "thing" into the discussion because it's like comparing apples and oranges. Both are round and enjoyable to eat but the tastes are different.

You are right in the sense that your chances are probably far better at roulette than at horse racing UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE.

So many novices seem to think that because the game is theoretically beatable by SOMEONE that this automatically means it is beatable by THEM.

The long and short of this is that if you are a winning player - that is, you have a winning methodology - this betting system will work for you as will any other.

If you are not a winning player - that is, if you approach does not produce flat-bet profitability - you WILL LOSE.


There is NO way I would be target betting at a casino. The machine will win and the run of outs can be astronomical even at 1/1. Every bet at a casino is independent of previous bets because there is no form. I look at it this way. If I have five losers in a row at 1/1 in roulette I have no confidence my next collect will come soon. If I have five losers at 1/1 at horseracing I am confident my winner will come soon because I know my selections aren't that bad for too long. That doesn't mean I go the silly all up path though.



The bolded statement above shows how skewed your belief system is from the mathematical reality of the situation.

Horse racing is a machine as well. And a well-oiled one at that.


Look, I am not trying to be argumentative here. Clearly you believe what you believe. You posted it here because you assumed that you'd find a lot of people agreed with you.

Truthfully, we ALL root for you to win. Why? because if that is all it takes, we'll all just go become winning players with it. I am not above doing this.

I truly wish you will, but doubt that the future of your endeavor is a rosy one.

Please report back your end result.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Harvhorse]

I knew a guy at the track who would aim to make one hundred dollars per race, be it win , exacta or any bet he would bet an amount to return his target 100.00