The $100 winner

[alexander99]

Interesting question:


Lets say, your goal is to win $100 for the day.

You start with $200.


You have 2 hours....about 4 races to wager on.

How would you approach this?

Ex. -Try a 2 or 3 race place or show parlay?

-Bet a solid favorite to place? Hope for 3.00 range payoff

-Play a couple races, each race finding a very solid selection at 2-1 +.
Both bets $100 win.

Which approach is likely to produce best long-term results?

Maybe you can try another system...with exotic bets.

They key is to produce that $100 profit for the day.

[alexander99]

Personally, I would just find a solid favorite...


proven at Distance, proven at Class level, very good form.

Bet the $200 to place... with a larger field, should get at least 3.00 payoff.

[DJofSD]

Hopefully you have some idea (records) which race or races of the four play to your strengths. If you have an advantage in those events, wager into those races more than the others.

On the other hand, if you are totally clueless in all four, I'd pick my top two contenders in each race and aportion the $50 for that race appropriately.

Which ever game plan you use, stick to it. If you change your plan out of panic, you'll likely lose.

[The Judge]

I don't see what difference if makes with the amount of money you start with if it's $200 or $2,000 I would bet the same way and the same number of races. More would be bet in some races less in others, if I liked the combo bets I would make them.

The problem I see is turning $200 a day into $300. 50%ROI.

[SMOO]

The problem I see is turning $200 a day into $300. 50%ROI.

Collect 100 old forms/programs off the ground and re-sell them for $1 each in the parking lot. :jump:

[alysheba88]

Personally, I would just find a solid favorite...


proven at Distance, proven at Class level, very good form.

Bet the $200 to place... with a larger field, should get at least 3.00 payoff.

That approach is fine if you like betting the same horses as everyone else and hit 100% of those bets. Surest way to lose money gambling is trying to a "safe" approach

[alexander99]

Hi

Over the long-term...the so called "safe approach" will clearly out perform the high risk- high return approach.

IN the investment area....people said.... can't make big money investing in safe companies like Coke, American Express, Gillette...well...tell that to warren buffet. Made him a billionaire.

I once read about an old timer...in the cali area. Jack Mathewson

He's no longer with us, but he had some great advice:

He would say...all my friends are win bettors...and also play exotics for big money.

They have one thing in common...they are all broke.

Old Jack...would play extra safe (but he would gamble big money).

On average...he would earn $1000 weekly. Not too bad.

Perhaps..he played way too safe..but, it worked for him.

How did he bet?

$500 - 1,000 to SHOW. If he really liked a horse, he'd bet to PLACE.

All he looked for was min of 2.80 payoff.

Yes, this is a bit too conservative..but, the guy cashed 80%.

Anyone else on here consistently earning $1,000 week?

Thanks:ThmbUp:

[ranchwest]

I see you've only made 10 posts. Have you noticed yet that most people don't ask a question and then post an answer?

[dav4463]

I see you've only made 10 posts. Have you noticed yet that most people don't ask a question and then post an answer?

Maybe he wants others to validate what he's heard about a conservative approach being better. I like the high risk/high reward myself and I'm not broke...................yet!.....knock on wood! My way of turning $200 into $300 is I will generally lose nine times and go $1800 in the hole before hitting for $3000 and I can turn $2000 into $3000 or maybe I will hit for $3000 right away using $200 and then lose $1800, but I still turn $2000 into $3000.

The question should be though for me......how do you turn $200 into $215? That's more realistic over the long haul.

[SMOO]

The question should be though for me......how do you turn $200 into $215? That's more realistic over the long haul.

Find a track with 2.20 minimum show payoffs and bet $200 on your best bet of the day. With the extra 5 bucks you can buy a hot dog. :ThmbUp:

[BeatTheChalk]

Collect 100 old forms/programs off the ground and re-sell them for $1 each in the parking lot. :jump:

Smoo you are a brutal person ...but I laffed a lot :lol: :D

[BeatTheChalk]

Hi

Over the long-term...the so called "safe approach" will clearly out perform the high risk- high return approach.

IN the investment area....people said.... can't make big money investing in safe companies like Coke, American Express, Gillette...well...tell that to warren buffet. Made him a billionaire.

I once read about an old timer...in the cali area. Jack Mathewson

He's no longer with us, but he had some great advice:

He would say...all my friends are win bettors...and also play exotics for big money.

They have one thing in common...they are all broke.

Old Jack...would play extra safe (but he would gamble big money).

On average...he would earn $1000 weekly. Not too bad.

Perhaps..he played way too safe..but, it worked for him.

How did he bet?

$500 - 1,000 to SHOW. If he really liked a horse, he'd bet to PLACE.

All he looked for was min of 2.80 payoff.

Yes, this is a bit too conservative..but, the guy cashed 80%.

Anyone else on here consistently earning $1,000 week?

Thanks:ThmbUp:

His name strikes a bell...Years and years ago. I keep thinking he wrote
a book or something :bang: And no it is not Christy Mathewson who
pitched inthe 1926 World Series for the Cards...Came in and struckout
Tony Lazzeri. Dont holdme to that

[alexander99]

I don't think he wrote a book,

but he may have been featured in one.

Most likely.

Anyhow, I really can't knock his aproach.

He was a consistent winner

[alexander99]

Bred to Run

-Mike Helm

I believe old Jack was featured in this book.

Great read.

[DanG]

Over the long-term...the so called "safe approach" will clearly out perform the high risk- high return approach.

Anyone else on here consistently earning $1,000 week?

My oh my Alexander…You certainly keep things interesting, I hope you keep writing. Two large coffee’s and a couple of your posts and I’m ready for action. :jump:


1st statement;

Not true in my experience;

I actually know very few of what you would categorize as “conservative” gamblers who are long term winners. Not saying they don’t exist, but what you term “high risk / high reward” is not only possible long term its fact.

2nd statement;

No I don’t earn $1,000 “consistently” a week, but significantly more than that averaged over a 52 week period based on nearly 13 years of full time play. Why is it necessary to earn the same amount every 7 days? (Of course, my x-wife could answer that one, but that’s another issue. :D)

[alexander99]

High Risk- High Return?

---->What is your interpretation of this?

Listen, lets keep it simple.

I'll tell you how i approach a race-

I start by highlighting the first 3 favs.

Why? One will win approx. 65% of the time.

I am not looking for $5,000 scores or $50.00 winners.

I am looking for solid selections...

Consistent horses, Proven at Class level, Proven at Distance...Good form.

Positive race shape..clear pace advantage.

This to me is Low Risk-Low return.


Regarding computer programs?

Well, granted..they can assist a horseplayer.

But, to what degree?

Everything is relative.

You may think they work well...but, compared to what?


Let me simplify:

Here's what it takes to WIN-

The DISCIPLINE to wager exclusively on those horse-races that produce a positive expectancy.

No edge= no bet. Reality equals= most races are unplayable.

Not talking about a possible 1% edge.

I am talking about a clear advantage.

I happen to be a pace handicapper,

through the years i have developed a systematic approach that identifies very favorable situations.

Very favorable.

I have kept full records.

In the late 90's i selected 4 consecutive winners-

each winning by 5+ lengths. (one of which paid 16.00)

This is what i mean by- Only bet the obvious. Very favorable situations.


In one respect, i can agree with the concept of these computer programs....

they try to quantify winning situations.

However, there are just too many variables to consider.

[alexander99]

1st statement;

Not true in my experience;

I actually know very few of what you would categorize as “conservative” gamblers who are long term winners. Not saying they don’t exist, but what you term “high risk / high reward” is not only possible long term its fact.

2nd statement;

No I don’t earn $1,000 “consistently” a week, but significantly more than that averaged over a 52 week period based on nearly 13 years of full time play. Why is it necessary to earn the same amount every 7 days? (Of course, my x-wife could answer that one, but that’s another issue. :D)

------>Funny thing, I know very few HIGH-risk gamblers and investors who are long-term winners.

Of course, we must compute results over the long -term.

Weekly results, are not so important.

Its like those poker tournaments...over a 2 or 3 days period...

anyone can get lucky and WIN.

But, how do we find the best players? Real winners?

Only way is through long-term results.

I'll stick with my proven, conservative approach.

(I have explained my approach in another post).

Well...if what you do is working...great.

Continued success.

Everyone has their own methods.