I found this this morning while looking around

[2000_ls1]

[Deleted By Admin]


What do you guys think of this?

[MONEY]

I don't know what £100.:blush:
It looks similar to a martingale system, which means simply your going to lose your pants.:(
Are you sure that your post is not a copyright infringement?:ThmbDown:

[Valuist]

Progressive wagering systems are a quick road to ruin. Let's see how this system works when its lost 10 or 15 straight times and the amount wagered gets to be sizeable. Systems never take into account the psychological aspects of progressive wagering. Don't think a favorite can lose 10-15 straight times? Favorites win roughly 1/3 of the time.....ever see a .333 hitter in baseball go thru an 0 for 12 slump? It happens.

Never chase after lost money.

[2000_ls1]

I hope it's not copyrighted Money, yea I see what you mean Valuist.


But, theory being I guess, it would work but whether or not you could handle it is the question. If I were to go to the track and lose all day i do not know if I could go the next day with the same system and bet 10x more than what I normally bet trying to compensate for the prior day's wagering.

[oddswizard]

A money management formula that tells you to quit after you make your daily profit goal?
Imagine that!

[JPinMaryland]

Systems never take into account the psychological aspects of progressive wagering. Don't think a favorite can lose 10-15 straight times? Favorites win roughly 1/3 of the time.....ever see a .333 hitter in baseball go thru an 0 for 12 slump? It happens.

Of course the easy solution to that is BET THE HOUSE ON HIS 13th AT BAT. Mortal lock.

[JPinMaryland]

Why couldnt you use this exact same system to play longshots? YOu find a 20-1 shot in race 1, you want to win $50, so you play $2.50. You lose. You find a 30-1 shot in race 2. so you bet like $2.70. you lose. You find a 40-1 shot in race 3, you bet like 2.40 or whatever it is, you lose, etc.

Same idea. Except my system, you spend less money for race. Leaves you with something left over for hot dog and beer.

[2000_ls1]

JP I guess you could, would probably bet less, in money terms, in the long run but hit less as well.

I doubt it would be worth it either way though.

[chickenhead]

I remember when I was 18 I went to Tahoe with my "special cant lose roulette system" I had just cooked up...just bet black and double if you lose until you win! Can't miss! No way red will come up THAT many times in a row!

I was worried that the dealers might catch onto my casino bank busting system, and they did, and had a good time laughing at me.

It was a short trip but an invaluable lesson.

[2000_ls1]

At the casino, the only time I went, I played blackjack for about 6 hours. When I lost I would lower my bet, but when I would win I stepped up to table max bets. I would get on a run of 3-4 straight and when I would lose I would start all over at table minimum. I did just the opposite of what I had read, the whole bet higher until you win, and came out ahead by ~600%. I think I went in with $100, and came out with 5-6 hundred. Worked like a charm for me, lol, but I couldn't do that now. I am married and now have something called bills, dangit.

[yak merchant]

Any Martingale type system pissing into a negative expectation will get you in trouble. But on to two other pet peaves, one of which is sort of mentioned in the article, both of which basically revolve around how "not betting" is the way to make money all while touting it as "Sound money management".

First is the "quit after you are up" methodology. I know of a couple professional sports gamblers that swear by it (really one guy and his protege/cronies). Once they make X dollars a week they just pack it in. Which is fine if their excuse was to help with "THEIR" money management. But they will swear up and down and argue with you until you are blue in the face that their method is money management across the board regardless of expectation and it is THE way to make the most money bar none. Granted these guys aren't anywhere near statisticians (nor am I) and to be honest with you I don't know how they succeed at the level they do. But no matter what I cannot explain that if you have an overall positive expectation where each event is independent, that the next bet has a positive expectation. I understand why they do it, because if you get up you may change your style of play and bet on events with negative expectations. But it kills me that no matter what they are 100% sure quiting while you are ahead is good money managment.


Second is "selectivity" in the name of money management. The whole, "You can't bet on too many games (horses) and make money. The juice will eat you up. You have to wait for one or two games and pound them." argument kills me. The reason the juice eats you up is you are picking winners at a lower than break even percentage, nothing more nothing less. If I have a positive expectation I want to bet on every possible event I can. Trying to explain that to a road gambler is like trying to explain the merits of freedom of speech to Stalin. Even when presented with a rather clear cut question, "Would you rather bet 100 games and hit 70% or would you rather bet 10,000 games and hit 53%", the answer is usually "Yeah but".

Yeah but middle school math is good.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I wanted to play the system, but could not find any pound notes!
Try 2nd favorites.

[Dick Schmidt]

This has shown up any number of times here and on other racing boards. Called a "Due Column" money management system, it has led many to ruin. Whatever you do, never use it on longshots. The runouts will kill you. To make it work, you need to run a very high win percentage. Anything more than 3 or 4 runouts in a row is asking for trouble. If you can make it work to perfection, you have a good money management system that wins about half of what flat betting brings in. Whee!


Dick

I would like to take you seriously, but that would be an affront to your intelligence.

[2000_ls1]

"Would you rather bet 100 games and hit 70% or would you rather bet 10,000 games and hit 53%"

I would love to do either, lol.

[JackS]

This is the Martingale. Typically used at blackjack tables in which your chance of a win on each deal is very close to 50%. It's reported that casino managers love this type of player. If you stay and play long enough you will eventually hit a losing streak that will require you to bet the table limit. Should you win on this final bet, your profits are meager. I f you lose, your losses are staggering.
One advantage horses "might have" and assuming a proficient handicapper and very large pools is that there is no limit. This would give a well heeled player the monatary leverage to keep doubling up until the win pool was maxed-out at say 1-1.
If you think you can play favorites and hit at a 51% rate or better while keeping a close eye on the win pool and have proof that you can't lose then go ahead.
Attempting such a scheme wouild be time and labor intensive on the handicapping side, and only minimal profits during the "good days" and still keeping in mind those sure to come "bad days" that will come close to wiping-out several of yur previous days winnings.
I think if I were you, I'd scrap this idea and try something else.

[2000_ls1]

Wasn't thinking about doing it, just seeing if anyone has tried it before and how they done. Thought it was a pretty interesting concept though.

[NEhandicapper]

I like the part about reaching your goal and quitting. As to the other dribble, I’ll pass. Quitting, or at least pocketing the bankroll and a percentage of winnings, then continue with “Entertainment” bets for the rest of the day/night, is the path away from visiting the Salvation Army for your next wardrobe acquisition.

I’ve seen too many acquaintances hit a nice exotic early in the day and leave the track with nothing but wasted betting slips. Like casinos, the track loves players seeking “Action”.

[DeadCrab]

I love the underlying assumption: The raetrack owes you a living, and all you have to do is decide how much it owes you.

[2000_ls1]

NE, If i sit down and do 2, 3 even 4 hours worth of research the night before, I feel as if I owe it to myself to play my selections. The next day I may be wondering "what the hell was I looking at last night" but I know I must have seen something and if I can't find it by the time the race starts, I'll pass on it.


Not saying I'll bet everything I have away, most of the time if I stick to my selections, I'll do okay. But once I lose 3-4 in a row I'll start second guessing myself, this is when the real fun begins. I'll just make my way to the ol' watering hole, grab a beer, and sit back and watch a race or two. And probably the ones I picked come in at this point.

[PaceAdvantage]

2001, where did you get the info you posted in the first note of this thread? I deleted it (temporarily) until you can provide me with the link to this info....

Thanks...

[xfile]

Not saying I'll bet everything I have away, most of the time if I stick to my selections, I'll do okay. But once I lose 3-4 in a row I'll start second guessing myself, this is when the real fun begins. I'll just make my way to the ol' watering hole, grab a beer, and sit back and watch a race or two. And probably the ones I picked come in at this point.

Always have confidence in your wagers and never drink while wagering. The mental aspect of this game is what burries so many players. :cool:

[Doc]

I'll second that suggestion that you not drink while wagering. Some of the dumbest bets I've ever made have come after imbibing a few beers. You can lose your self-discipline and before you know it, you can find yourself begging for bus fare outside the main entrance.


Doc ;)

[Hosshead]

.....and before you know it, you can find yourself begging for bus fare outside the main entrance.
Doc ;) :lol: Oscar, Oscar !!

[2000_ls1]

I don't wager while drinking, if I lose a few in a row I'll just sit back grab a beer and watch, that's why I say the ones I had written down would come in after I start just watching and drinking. Normally by this point I am down to my beer money anyway, so it doesn't matter. I can't bet my beer money away or I would be upset.


PA, pm sent to you regarding where it came from.

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=2000_ls1]I don't wager while drinking, if I lose a few in a row I'll just sit back grab a beer and watch, that's why I say the ones I had written down would come in after I start just watching and drinking. Normally by this point I am down to my beer money anyway, so it doesn't matter. I can't bet my beer money away or I would be upset.



Drinking should be left for celebration when the day is done or you can place your bets early after all the changes are in, then sit back and enjoy a beer or two. I made it a point never to leave the track broke, money in reserve just in case that beautiful blonde took a liking, or the car broke down or I was hungry.

T.D.

[NEhandicapper]

2000, I hear you about investing hours of time handicapping and wanting to make all plays. If a monetary goal was met early in the day, instead of just quitting, I also mentioned that one could pocket the bankroll and majority of the profits and only play the rest of the day with a small percentage of profits – “Entertainment” bets.

Now about losing the first 3-4 races; I think this is one of the biggest mental obstacles to overcome when playing the horses. Self doubting and second guessing can kill an ego and a bankroll quicker then a gold digging wife. My way of overcoming this conundrum is to one, be prepared, take notes after each race, analyze, and evaluate what went on in the race continuosly.

For preparation, I not only try to select winners, I try to predict how the race will be run. Who will jump the front, which will pressure the pacers, and are there any significant closers etc, etc... Additionally, or more importantly, is there a chaotic element in the race: First time starters, horses stretching out for the first time, horses shortening, layoffs, 2nd of a layoff, lightly raced horses, mud, bias’s, and positions.

Proper preparation results in a more proper end summary. One of the pitfalls of reviewing a race is to look too deep into why a particular horse won, especially an overlooked longshot. I run into this problem every time a horse wins that did not even come close to any other horse in the field numbers wise. You have to watch the replays between races and try to justify why a particular horse that you picked did not finish well. Could it be traffic, jockey made a mistake, pace disintegration, or did he just not show up. If a horse won that I did not consider a contender, ran a great race, and did not win from an extenuating circumstance, I look deeper into the horses form cycle and trainer intentions that I may of overlooked the night before. If nothing pops up, I’ll blame the loss to “Just another day at the races” or lower myself into saying the horse won because he was drugged.:bang:

As a note, I've found that in my early days of handicapping, I did not properly understand the conditions of the race. Winning horses that I overlooked fit the discription of "The race was written for them".

Since I work hard at being a disciplined player, whatever money I bring to the track for the day, I can accept losing. Because I can accept the loss, I play the game my way with slight adjustments till the day is done. Many times I lost the first seven races only to win the last three and go home with a good profit. I attribute the wins to note taking and evaluating what is going on after each race.

After losing the first three or four races, I understand if someone wants to pack it up and call the day a loss. But I recommend at least continue with analyzing the rest of the races, even if making paper bets. Even if I win big early, I will stay just for the practice.

[twindouble]

NEhandicapper;

This in your neighbor, Berkshire handicapper. :) We pretty much fish the same streams with the same gear. I'll just add on a good day, early mid or late I'll cut out a good percentage of that profit but I won't alter my wagering strategy at all. A loss in any race has nothing to do with the next race you already decided to play. Your wagering strategy should include a bankroll in hand to play the predetermined races you deemed playable, to be short of cash at any time through out the day isn't to bright.


T.D.

[Overlay]

If your success was achieved through applying a systematic approach that had proven its ability to consistently produce a profit over time (that is, it had a long-term positive expectation), then quitting for the day when a predetermined profit figure had been achieved would put a cap on your winnings, while having no limiting effect on the amount you could lose, which is exactly the reverse of what a wagering method’s goal should be. Even if your success was not the result of such systematic play, there may be a set of external conditions contributing to your positive results that should be capitalized on while they exist by continuing to play as long as the favorable trend lasts.

[JackS]

Quitting while ahead is only a good stratagy when playing games of chance.
If you don't consider that your fortunes for today were gained through skill then quitting would be a good idea.
Perhaps the last three races do not appeal to you and you would rather that your next three wagers be tomorrow on something that does. In this case, quitting would be justified.

[BlueShoe]

A major problem with steep progressions is underestimating the slumps and the huge cost of surviving long losing streaks.Many,many years ago there was a run of 34 losing favorites in a row at Hollywood Park,a track considered to be formful.Longshots can and do have runs of 50 to 100 losers in a row.A progression would cost about as much as all the gold in Fort Knox.