Concurrent wagering schemes

[ALL CIRCUITS GO]

A comment in another thread prompts me to ask this question, directed at those who play more than one track, and may be utilizing a martingale or recovery type system. (I myself utilize a recovery type system.)

Do you keep separate 'books' for each track as far as your system? Or do you consider the betting opportunities as they come along, and just plug it into your current scheme? ie: any track can be the next bet...

As my handle implies, I play many circuits, and my success at one track is often undermined by my disastrous results at another. However, I have found that I do my best when I keep each tracks wagers separate from the others.

This helps me identify where I may be going off track :) and helps me maximize my results at my current successful track. This scheme also keeps the cash flow on a more even keel.

comments? or suggestions are always appreciated..

[Robert Fischer]

A comment in another thread prompts me to ask this question, directed at those who play more than one track, and may be utilizing a martingale or recovery type system. (I myself utilize a recovery type system.)

Do you keep separate 'books' for each track as far as your system? Or do you consider the betting opportunities as they come along, and just plug it into your current scheme? ie: any track can be the next bet...

As my handle implies, I play many circuits, and my success at one track is often undermined by my disastrous results at another. However, I have found that I do my best when I keep each tracks wagers separate from the others.

This helps me identify where I may be going off track :) and helps me maximize my results at my current successful track. This scheme also keeps the cash flow on a more even keel.

comments? or suggestions are always appreciated..

Let me be clear that I do not advise a martingale like system although it is fun theory.
My version of using concurrent wagering schemes with a system like that is based on a security theory. There is a whole science to it but basically, You want to maximize profit and minimize risk of a total failure.

For example let us make the huge assumption that we could get 50% winners at post time odds of 1.5-1 .
Over a given set of 5000 wagers the max probable losing streak would be 12 consecutive losses. Winning back (a previous loss*1.05) would mean you need $1515.00 for 13 wagers. So assuming all this, the goal for that system now becomes accumulating $1515.00 before you hit a 13 wager losing streak. (starting to get an idea why this is "impossible"?)

Assuming we last 2500 wagers(no math used) an average profit of 65 cents per wager would be $1625. So you have your given set of 5000 wagers. The theory is that you can now space concurrent systems on this "number line" to attempt maximize profit. Now we are getting into real math. I will cheat here with a simple example of ALL and ODD. The first system"A" uses ALL wagers in the 5000 set. The second system"B" uses every other(ODD)wager in the 5000 wager set. It is improbable that both systems would ever fail from the same series of wagers(requiring 24? consecutive losses). Odd and All or a limit of two concurrent systems would not necessarily be the most efficient method. Math required.

1.A
2.AB
3.A
4.AB
5.A
6.AB
7.A
8.AB
9.A
10.AB


on books - yes a must
on tracks - any wager must fit the criteria could be any track
wagers are ordered chronologically (post time)

[Robert Fischer]

^ couple of notes

5000 $2 wagers at 50% * 1.5-1 = flat bet profit of $2500.
Even with a nice rebate anyone with these numbers would be unwise to take an edge and risk it through a martingale like system.
A wagering scheme like that would really only be valuable if you can show a profit with a negative expectation or a fair-odds expectation. At 1.5-1 a 40% hit rate would be zero profit or loss. The safety of the system begins to fail on paper after about 590 wagers. Then you would have to determine the probability of different profit or loss outcomes for a given amounts of wagers like 1000 , 2500, 5000 etc. The more efficiently you could use concurrent parts, the more attractive the wagering scheme would be within the probability model for a higher number of wagers.