PDA

View Full Version : With a 30% win rate, one play every two cards & 20% ROI, how & what would you bet


Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 01:00 PM
Question:

With a 30% win rate, one play every two cards & a 20% positive ROI, what type of bets would you make (win, exotic, etc.) and how would you bet ( money management)?

My number one goal is to steadily increase the bankroll. I'm in no rush.

Many thanks in advance,

Bill C.

oughtoh
06-14-2017, 01:06 PM
If I was doing it I would play win bets at 2% of my bankroll. As you win more you bet more, win less bet less. Just my opinion.

jimmyb
06-14-2017, 01:23 PM
One track wouldn't cut it. Simulcasting would work great for win betting. 20 tracks would give me 10 plays. I agree with 2% of bankroll with a bank of $2000.00.

$40.00 win bets X10. 20% of $400 = $80.00 X 7 days = $560.00 weekly. An extra $2000.00 or so a month would be a nice chunk of change.

green80
06-14-2017, 01:27 PM
another popular method is base bet + sq rt of profits. It is more agressive approach but I have found it to be best overall. Say your base bet is $2 and you are $9 ahead, you would bet $5, when you at $100 profit, your bet is $12. You must recalculate after each bet, which shouldn't be hard if you just get 1 bet every 2 cards

green80
06-14-2017, 01:30 PM
With a 30% win rate, I wouldn't bet anything less than 5/2

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 01:33 PM
With a 30% win rate, I wouldn't bet anything less than 5/2

Yes, we heard rumors to that effect.

I'm kidding: yes, that IS the odds filter that I use.

Thanks,

Bill

lamboguy
06-14-2017, 01:37 PM
back in the old days of commission and order horses, there were bets every day. unless you were on the inside you never knew which were the real horses or which were the fake ones that they spread all over the country like wild fire.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 01:38 PM
If I was doing it I would play win bets at 2% of my bankroll. As you win more you bet more, win less bet less. Just my opinion.

Yes, I've used the 2% of capital approach in the past and it is eminently sensible.

Thanks,

Bill C

ReplayRandall
06-14-2017, 01:38 PM
With a 30% win rate, I wouldn't bet anything less than 5/2

Bill's average winner pays $8.00, so how could you limit the odds range at 5/2? This doesn't even remotely make sense.....

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 01:42 PM
One track wouldn't cut it.

Of course. The weekends would be the best time to maximize the number of plays.

Thanks,

Bill C

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 01:45 PM
Bill's average winner pays $8.00, so how could you limit the odds range at 5/2? This doesn't even remotely make sense.....

I can't speak for the original poster about the 5/2 and above odds but this would be something I would try to implement through the Twinspires.com odds filter.

Best,

Bill C

ReplayRandall
06-14-2017, 02:05 PM
I can't speak for the original poster about the 5/2 and above odds but this would be something I would try to implement through the Twinspires.com odds filter.

Best,

Bill C

Let me give you a 10 race example:

Your 3 winners paid $5, $6 and $13

But when analyzing your 3 winners, you find the $5 and $6 horses were both overlays, and your $13 horse was properly priced at 11/2, therefore no profit or loss, yet you end up having a +ROI of 20% for this example. So unless you've done extensive odds layering of your sample size, there's no way of knowing what odds ranges are actually profitable for your methodology...

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 02:15 PM
So unless you've done extensive odds layering of your sample size, there's no way of knowing what odds ranges are actually profitable for your methodology...

I would not have posted my original question if I didn't think I had a adequate sample size, known the distribution of the odds on the winners and most importantly, knew that the median winning payoff multiplied by 30% was generating a break even ROI.

Poindexter
06-14-2017, 02:22 PM
Just curious. If you hit 30% overall, doesn't mean that your horses that go off at 8/5 will win at a 30% clip and horses that go off at 6/1 will also hit 30%. The horses that go off at 8/5 may win at a 45% clip and still be plenty profitable and the horses that go off at 6/1 may only win 18% of the time and be plenty profitable. You came up with 5/2 as your odds filter. Is that because you assumed that 5/2 was best or because coincidentally that is where your plays needed to be to insure they were profitable or that is sort of the magic point on maintaining that high roi?

Now I am assuming you have a large sample of plays in the books and know these plays to be profitable, the next step is to figure out what their hit rate is by final odds. In other words you plays that go off at 3-1 may win at a 30% clip, your plays that go off at 4-1 may win only at a at a 25% clip............once you determine this use a straight kelly method and pull out profts as you reach certain plateaus. If your sample size is on the smallish size and you don't want to risk Kelly just yet, 3% of bankroll should keep you safe. If you are able to assess value with your methodology, I would go with 2 1/2% of bankroll on a lower value play, up to 3 1/2 % of bankroll on a high value play. One other option is to have a standard betting bankroll where you bet 3% of your bankroll per play, then put the profits on a Kelly bankroll. That way if your plays continue to deliver you will start making huge money down the road, but if they do not, and they sort of tread water, your initial bankroll will not go down the tubes. This is typically the best approach when trying something new.

DeltaLover
06-14-2017, 02:25 PM
Question:

With a 30% win rate, one play every two cards & a 20% positive ROI, what type of bets would you make (win, exotic, etc.) and how would you bet ( money management)?

My number one goal is to steadily increase the bankroll. I'm in no rush.

Many thanks in advance,

Bill C.

With one play every two cards (!) I would try to find something better to do.

ReplayRandall
06-14-2017, 02:28 PM
Yes, we heard rumors to that effect.

I'm kidding: yes, that IS the odds filter that I use.

Thanks,

Bill

With a 30% win rate, I wouldn't bet anything less than 5/2

I would not have posted my original question if I didn't think I had a adequate sample size, known the distribution of the odds on the winners and most importantly, knew that the median winning payoff multiplied by 30% was generating a break even ROI.

Bill, you're one of the good guys on this board, however your previous post above contradicts what you just said......It must be my fault as to what critical point I'm trying to make with specific odds layering UNDER 5/2 that's being misunderstood. Bottom-line, you can't have a 30% hit rate at a +ROI of 20%, when your AVERAGE winner pays $8.00, and yet you have your odds filter set at nothing under 5-2......It's impossible.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 03:08 PM
One other option is to have a standard betting bankroll where you bet 3% of your bankroll per play, then put the profits on a Kelly bankroll. That way if your plays continue to deliver you will start making huge money down the road, but if they do not, and they sort of tread water, your initial bankroll will not go down the tubes. This is typically the best approach when trying something new.

Thanks for some good food for thought.

Best,

Bill C

whodoyoulike
06-14-2017, 04:31 PM
One track wouldn't cut it. Simulcasting would work great for win betting. 20 tracks would give me 10 plays. I agree with 2% of bankroll with a bank of $2000.00.

$40.00 win bets X10. 20% of $400 = $80.00 X 7 days = $560.00 weekly. An extra $2000.00 or so a month would be a nice chunk of change.

What happened to the 30% win rate?

whodoyoulike
06-14-2017, 04:33 PM
With a 30% win rate, I wouldn't bet anything less than 5/2

Shouldn't this be something like 4/1 instead of 5/2?

jimmyb
06-14-2017, 06:22 PM
What happened to the 30% win rate?

The end result as stated was a 1.20 ROI. I have no idea how many races this is based on, but from what I gather it was plenty.

The bottom line would be all that mattered to me.

vegasone
06-14-2017, 06:45 PM
Seems to me that you already have a system that is profitable. Now you are trying to find another system that you will need to research.

Just because you are profitable with win is no guarantee it will carry into other types of bet. More research is required. Modifying odds ranges is basically creating something new so more research again.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 06:56 PM
I don't know who said said I had a average winning mutual of $8.00 but it wasn't me.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 07:04 PM
TIME TO TEST THE SYSTEM I GUESS - SEE MY PICKS FOR TODAY UNDER SELECTIONS AND ALSO GOING FORWARD ON A DAILY BASIS .

i WILL KEEP CUMULATIVE STATISTICS.

i'LL LET FOLKS JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES.

best,

Bill C

P.S. - I'll need a name for the system. I'll call it the GG system with GG being an acronym for Charlie's Brown existential cry "Good Grief."

Poindexter
06-14-2017, 07:11 PM
I don't know who said said I had a average winning mutual of $8.00 but it wasn't me.

You claimed a 30% hit rate and a 20% roi. To make 20% on every dollar bet you would have to have an average mutual of $8.00 at a 30% hit rate.

.3*8.00=$2.40 per $2 bet or 20% roi.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 07:38 PM
I'm not disputing the calculation or the veracity of the claim of an average winning mutuel around $8.00. What I'm saying is that I did not explicitly assert the specific figure of $8.00.

Anyway, as I said in my previous post, I decided on the spur of the moment to test this new system which I'm calling the GG system.

I might be wrong but i think this one might well hold up.

The "XYZ" system did 2 years ago but I received a ton of criticism (mostly private) because I specifically hadn't declared an odds filter up front.

Two 100-race samples with ROI's of 33% and -3% and people called the system a failure.

I didn't make any claims for that system at all but folks called it a failure.

I'd like those people to declare their criteria of successes or failure upfront like I did with the system's predictions.

There. I said it.

OK, kid, you're just human.

Be well everyone.

Bill C

green80
06-14-2017, 08:26 PM
Shouldn't this be something like 4/1 instead of 5/2?

with a 30% hit rate 6.66 is about your break even point. Why bet horses that will pay less than it takes to break even. This is assuming all your picks hit at the same rate regardless of odds, but with the information provided that is where I'm at.

Inner Dirt
06-14-2017, 08:27 PM
One track wouldn't cut it. Simulcasting would work great for win betting. 20 tracks would give me 10 plays. I agree with 2% of bankroll with a bank of $2000.00.

$40.00 win bets X10. 20% of $400 = $80.00 X 7 days = $560.00 weekly. An extra $2000.00 or so a month would be a nice chunk of change.

How are you going to go through 20 tracks in one day?

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 08:43 PM
with a 30% hit rate 6.66 is about your break even point. Why bet horses that will pay less than it takes to break even. This is assuming all your picks hit at the same rate regardless of odds, but with the information provided that is where I'm at.

I'm only trying to bet horses at 5/2 or better. If memory serves, the minimum winning price for a 5/2 shot is $7.00.

In the above sentence, when I say the word "trying," I mean I'm setting a 5/2 or higher odds filter at zero minutes to post for the GG system's win bets that I bet through twinspires.com.

ReplayRandall
06-14-2017, 09:01 PM
I don't know who said said I had a average winning mutual of $8.00 but it wasn't me.
You sir have lost all credibility with me......On the simplest level, 30% hit rate showing a +ROI of 20% looks like this:

10 races x $2bets= $20

30% hit rate= 3 winners

+ROI of 20% of $20 is $4

(total returned is $24)3 is $8.00 average mutuel

Bill, do you care to revise what you've already stated?

You need not reply, as this conversation's over.....Unless you want to get stubborn with me.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 09:05 PM
How are you going to go through 20 tracks in one day?

It takes me at least 2.5 hours to do 20 tracks (including the necessary double checking) and requires me to be brutally focused.

Because the system is for dirt only, focusing on tracks with a high percentage of dirt races helps mitigate the weekend crush.

Bill C

Inner Dirt
06-14-2017, 09:18 PM
It takes me at least 2.5 hours to do 20 tracks (including the necessary double checking) and requires me to be brutally focused.

Because the system is for dirt only, focusing on tracks with a high percentage of dirt races helps mitigate the weekend crush.

Bill C

I spend 2.5 hours + on one track. Are you using some digital files and software? I am old school accept for the fact I download the DRF and print it out, instead of buying it at a liquor store.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 09:25 PM
You sir have lost all credibility with me......On the simplest level, 30% hit rate showing a +ROI of 20% looks like this:

10 races x $2bets= $20

30% hit rate= 3 winners

+ROI of 20% of $20 is $4

(total returned is $24)3 is $8.00 average mutuel

Bill, do you care to revise what you've already stated?

You need not reply, as this conversation's over.....Unless you want to get stubborn with me.


I didn't dispute the $8.00 figure. I just said (or I guess meant to say since it doesn't seem that I was clear enough) that I did not first mention specifically the $8.00 figure - someone else did.

That being said, I never said that the $8.00 figure was inaccurate.

When I hear you say "Bill, do you care to revise what you've already stated?" and then say "You need not reply, as this conversation's over...."
I'm not quite frankly sure how I should respond.

I should not want to give tacit approval to one who would presume to know all points of view without being gracious enough to inquire more deeply where the apparent, in contra distinction to the real, differences may presumably lie.

All good things,

Bill C

HalvOnHorseracing
06-14-2017, 09:40 PM
Question:

With a 30% win rate, one play every two cards & a 20% positive ROI, what type of bets would you make (win, exotic, etc.) and how would you bet ( money management)?

My number one goal is to steadily increase the bankroll. I'm in no rush.

Many thanks in advance,

Bill C.

How do you not increase the bankroll with a 20% positive ROI?

Isn't the other variable the profit goal per time period?

If your ROI is 20% based on dollars bet, then isn't total collection simply a function of how much you bet? Isn't it the case that if you bet $1,000 to win, you make $200, and if you bet $1,000 in exactas you make $200? So if you want to make $200,000 a year you just have to bet a million dollars. Am I misunderstanding the riddle?

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 09:49 PM
My only goal is permanent positive ROI, which when you think it through, means, yes "how can you avoid increasing" your positive bankroll except any given series of bets can bankrupt your initial stake.

Best,

Bill C

oughtoh
06-14-2017, 09:53 PM
I want to know how you handicap 20 tracks in 2.5 hours.

ReplayRandall
06-14-2017, 10:01 PM
I should not want to give tacit approval to one who would presume to know all points of view without being gracious enough to inquire more deeply where the apparent, in contra distinction to the real, differences may presumably lie.

All good things,

Bill C

I've been around the block a TON more than you have, as your posts give away your acumen level. For future reference, don't boast that you have a large enough sample size to infer that you can produce a 1.20 ROI on a long-term basis, it's insulting to those that bet this game on a serious level......Trifecta Mike strung readers along, so did Capper Al with his BS, don't become one of them.

steveb
06-14-2017, 10:48 PM
How do you not increase the bankroll with a 20% positive ROI?

Isn't the other variable the profit goal per time period?

If your ROI is 20% based on dollars bet, then isn't total collection simply a function of how much you bet? Isn't it the case that if you bet $1,000 to win, you make $200, and if you bet $1,000 in exactas you make $200? So if you want to make $200,000 a year you just have to bet a million dollars. Am I misunderstanding the riddle?


the bigger his bet level becomes, then the less % he makes on turnover.
that is almost certainty.
and roi is a useless metric anyway, imho.

Bill Cullen
06-14-2017, 10:51 PM
I've been around the block a TON more than you have, as your posts give away your acumen level. For future reference, don't boast that you have a large enough sample size to infer that you can produce a 1.20 ROI on a long-term basis, it's insulting to those that bet this game on a serious level......Trifecta Mike strung readers along, so did Capper Al with his BS, don't become one of them.

"For future reference, don't boast that you have a large enough sample size to infer that you can produce a 1.20 ROI on a long-term basis"

Those are your words, not mine. I wasn't aware that i had made ANY claim AS YOU STATE IT.

YOU NEED TO QUOTE ME IN CONTEXT TO SUPPORT YOUR UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS.

I TAKE IT YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER.

OK, you seem to be saying that a 1.2 positive ROI long term is not easily doable (if at all).

I'm saying, using an odds filter, that that goal is doable (or close enough to it).

If it's a matter of degrees, then yes, i could fall short.

But if it's a difference in kind, a quantum leap as they might say, I think i will hit the mark.

So watch the test of the GG system starting today in "My Picks" thread under the Selections forum.


So Mr. Resay Randall,a word to the wise: there is a difference between good breeding and being merely well bred.

Be well.

Bill C

ReplayRandall
06-14-2017, 11:02 PM
"For future reference, don't boast that you have a large enough sample size to infer that you can produce a 1.20 ROI on a long-term basis"

Those are your words, not mine. I wasn't aware that i had made ANY claim AS YOU STATE IT.

YOU NEED TO QUOTE ME IN CONTEXT TO SUPPORT YOUR UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS.

I TAKE IT YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER.

OK, you seem to be saying that a 1.2 positive ROI long term is not easily doable (if at all).

I'm saying, using an odds filter, that that goal is doable (or close enough to it).

If it's a matter of degrees, then yes, i could fall short.

But if it's a difference in kind, a quantum leap as they might say, I think i will hit the mark.

So watch the test of the GG system starting today in "My Picks" thread under the Selections forum.


So Mr. Resay Randall,a word to the wise: there is a difference between good breeding and being merely well bred.

Be well.

Bill C

Crushing reply there, Sport.....We're done.

Track Collector
06-15-2017, 02:35 AM
With one play every two cards (!) I would try to find something better to do.

What percentage of races do you participate in?

DeltaLover
06-15-2017, 08:30 AM
What percentage of races do you participate in?

I will only pass two types of races:


Too much unknowns: For example the majority of the starters are first time outs or the race contains Europeans starting first time in NA in a rarely running distance.
A very obvious favorite that seems like a cinch that I cannot make a significant case against.


Any other race I try to bet ( I estimate I probably bet more than 75% of the races in any card I am betting into).

Given the smallness of the betting pools, we need as many bets as possible to overcome losing streaks and maintain a valid hope for some significant profit.

Bill Cullen
06-15-2017, 10:38 AM
I use the ultimate pp's with comments from brisnet.

Bill Cullen
06-15-2017, 10:39 AM
What percentage of races do you participate in?

1 every 2 cards - call it around 5%.

green80
06-15-2017, 10:49 AM
Even at a 30% hit rate you can have some long run outs. At a +20% Roi it won't take long to get rich but I don't think it will hold long term. Even a +1% is good, with the rebate adw's you can add another 3-5% to that.

Bill Cullen
06-15-2017, 10:56 AM
Even at a 30% hit rate you can have some long run outs. At a +20% Roi it won't take long to get rich but I don't think it will hold long term. Even a +1% is good, with the rebate adw's you can add another 3-5% to that.

>but I don't think it will hold long term.

I always think it won't last. The healthiest counter force against experimental bias is being skeptical.

>Even a +1% is good, with the rebate adw's you can add another 3-5% to >that

I hadn't even though about that.

Best

Bill C

Bill Cullen
06-15-2017, 11:03 AM
How are you going to go through 20 tracks in one day?

I only do dirt races and then there have to be enough starters in the race.

I scan the summary at the bottom of the Brisnet ultimate pp's with comments and only go up every once in a while to check just one data point on typically just one horse.

That's how I can do 20 tracks in 2.5 hours.

Remember, I said 2.5 hours is as fast as humanly possible as I can do it. A good three hours would far more be likely for me to do 20 tracks.

It's damn hard work (at least for me - I'm 64).

Best,

Bill C

oughtoh
06-15-2017, 02:28 PM
I am lucky to do 2 tracks in 3 hours. I will be your age this year. About these rebates from ADW's that everyone talks about. Who give these rebates and how much do you have to bet to get them?

Bill Cullen
06-15-2017, 02:33 PM
I am lucky to do 2 tracks in 3 hours. I will be your age this year. About these rebates from ADW's that everyone talks about. Who give these rebates and how much do you have to bet to get them?

Twinspires.com gives rebates but beyond that I don't know much about them

oughtoh
06-15-2017, 02:43 PM
I have them but haven't used them since my information got hacked from them a few years ago.

betovernetcapper
06-15-2017, 06:16 PM
I looked up the possibilities of a 30% spot play. Over the course of 1000 races you can expect to have one losing streak of 19 ( :rip:) and one winning streak of 6 :popcorn:

One feature of having a 30% win rate is that you have a 70% lose rate. That's a lot of horses and on the plus side a lot of data. Is there any common thread among that 70% that would allow you to cut them from your spot play & maintain the 30% (+) & $1.2 ROI? Not all spot plays or software programs preform equally well at all tracks. If your red boarding reveals that it does poorly at a particular track, drop it & your win% automatically goes up.

Currently your spot play gives you 3.5 bets a week. If you bet $200 on @, you should have a net profit of $140. The good news here is that you can automatically drop those tracks with very small handles. If the win pool is $600 & you bet $200 your 7-2 shot becomes odds on. A software program I was using was showing very good results at either Sunland or a least a track with the name Sun in it. I started to play and noticed the most I could bet was between $5 & $10 without changing the odds. :bang: At any rate if you drop the tiny tracks that can't accommodate your bets, your probably down to 10 or 12 tracks which would make life easier.

In terms of betting, there are spot plays that produce positive results in the place & show categories. Because you have a 70% loss rate, it might be helpful if you could break even with a place bet as insurance. Take a look at your last few hundred races and see what the effect would be.

green80
06-15-2017, 06:45 PM
just curious, how many race sample was that +20% roi from?

whodoyoulike
06-15-2017, 06:52 PM
... I might be wrong but i think this one might well hold up.

The "XYZ" system did 2 years ago but I received a ton of criticism (mostly private) because I specifically hadn't declared an odds filter up front.

Two 100-race samples with ROI's of 33% and -3% and people called the system a failure.

I didn't make any claims for that system at all but folks called it a failure.

I'd like those people to declare their criteria of successes or failure upfront like I did with the system's predictions.

There. I said it.

OK, kid, you're just human.

Be well everyone.

Bill C

I know it's difficult to ignore some people because I know some have really pissed me off.

Sounds like you were satisfied with the results of your samples. So, if their criticism isn't constructive criticism then as someone previously and eloquently stated just f' em.

Bill Cullen
06-16-2017, 04:34 PM
Currently your spot play gives you 3.5 bets a week.

It's way more than 3.5 plays a week. There were five plays yesterday and maybe as many as 10 today .

betovernetcapper
06-16-2017, 11:06 PM
It's way more than 3.5 plays a week. There were five plays yesterday and maybe as many as 10 today .

Wow that's quite a lot. Were it me & I was sure this would continue to work, I'd start out with flat bets and bankroll that would cover 19 consecutive losses.
When the bankroll increased enough to cover 19 consecutive loses at a larger bet size, I'd increase the bet.

Example bankroll $475 bet $25, when the bankroll reaches $950, make the bet $50 then when it reaches $1475 increase the bet to $75 and at $1900, the bet would be $100 and so on.

This is not an exciting betting method but if your data is correct it should work. One nice feature is that your increasing the bet size in proportion to your bankroll at a pace that should be comfortable enough to avoid chocking.

Will be interested in hearing how your plays produce. Good Luck.

NorCalGreg
06-16-2017, 11:27 PM
"One nice feature is that you're increasing the bet size in proportion to your bankroll at a pace that should be comfortable enough to avoid "chocking".

Is that an actual word----or a typo? If it's not it could be....such as "You bet so much you're chalking"

A verb meaning to turn your 4-1 shot to chalk, by over-betting = "chalking"

Think I'll go down to the courthouse and register that term--you'll have to pay me to use it again. :D

betovernetcapper
06-16-2017, 11:56 PM
"One nice feature is that you're increasing the bet size in proportion to your bankroll at a pace that should be comfortable enough to avoid "chocking".

Is that an actual word----or a typo? If it's not it could be....such as "You bet so much you're chalking"

A verb meaning to turn your 4-1 shot to chalk, by over-betting = "chalking"

Think I'll go down to the courthouse and register that term--you'll have to pay me to use it again. :D

My bad. Meant to say choking. Surprisingly there is such a word and it has something to do with preventing the forward motion of a vehicle using a ( you guessed it ) chock. :lol:

betovernetcapper
06-17-2017, 12:04 AM
Not to go off topic, but I just checked eBAY & there are 4821 chocks on auction. Who knew? :confused:

Bill Cullen
06-17-2017, 12:46 AM
Wow that's quite a lot. Were it me & I was sure this would continue to work, I'd start out with flat bets and bankroll that would cover 19 consecutive losses.
When the bankroll increased enough to cover 19 consecutive loses at a larger bet size, I'd increase the bet.

Example bankroll $475 bet $25, when the bankroll reaches $950, make the bet $50 then when it reaches $1475 increase the bet to $75 and at $1900, the bet would be $100 and so on.

This is not an exciting betting method but if your data is correct it should work. One nice feature is that your increasing the bet size in proportion to your bankroll at a pace that should be comfortable enough to avoid chocking.

Will be interested in hearing how your plays produce. Good Luck.

I'll have to give your betting strategy some serious thought.

Many thanks for sharing.

Bill C

traynor
06-17-2017, 02:39 AM
My bad. Meant to say choking. Surprisingly there is such a word and it has something to do with preventing the forward motion of a vehicle using a ( you guessed it ) chock. :lol:

It also has a meaning similar to "choking"--as in two blocks jammed against one another to the point that no further movement is possible (alternately called "chockablock" or "chocked tight"). Common rigging and boating term, with a lot of variations.