Progressive betting style

[penguinfan]

I am sure many of you can tell me why this won't work and I would appreciate it before I jump into it head first because I have done it on paper and it worked for a month ON PAPER.

Consider the following to be accurate just for the example at hand:

You know you can pick 2 winners a day at a track after throwing out horses that are less than even money (1-1) at post time.

You can get your plays in right at post time without fail so you know the odds you base your plays on are as accurate as possible.

Now lets say you decide you want to win $100 a day every day and based on the above being true you play to win $50 on every correct pick to give you your daily profit of $100, after you hit $100 you quit for the day reguardless (this is about money not entertainment). So the first horse you play is at 2-1 so you want to profit $50 from him so you bet $25 on him and lose (by a nose at the wire of course) you carry that loss to the next race and now need to win $75 to achieve your $50 profit from your first winner, this time we are playing a horse that is even money and lay $75 to get where we want to be and again we lose (broke bad and never caught up) crud, we now need to hit $150 in this race ( our original $50 profit plus the $100 we are stuck). This time we get a 2-1 play and drop $75 on him and he wins going away!!! We are right where we want to be after 3 races, up $50 and we do that twice to get our $100 for the day and we go home a winner. This example contains very short prices and not all horses will go off as the favorite or even money, but that is worst case scenario because we have such a large lay out to obtain the desired profit, and thats the down side, but if you KNOW you can get those 2 winners every day and have a big enough bankroll to start with then why wont this work?

Any and all thought s appreciated.
penguinfan

[cj]

Originally posted by penguinfan

...You know you can pick 2 winners a day at a track after throwing out horses that are less than even money (1-1) at post time.

You can get your plays in right at post time without fail so you know the odds you base your plays on are as accurate as possible...


If you believe at any track you can pick 2 winners EVERY day excluding even money and below, I've got a bridge I can sell you.

The second part is pretty much MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

JMHO,
CJ

[penguinfan]

Again, lets just ASSUME those two to be true

[NYRAcapper]

Problem with this theory is if you are going to assume you are going to pk two winners every day you might as well assume they are going to be $100 horses cause it ain't gonna happen. You use the following example:

Now lets say you decide you want to win $100 a day every day and based on the above being true you play to win $50 on every correct pick to give you your daily profit of $100, after you hit $100 you quit for the day reguardless (this is about money not entertainment). So the first horse you play is at 2-1 so you want to profit $50 from him so you bet $25 on him and lose (by a nose at the wire of course) you carry that loss to the next race and now need to win $75 to achieve your $50 profit from your first winner, this time we are playing a horse that is even money and lay $75 to get where we want to be and again we lose (broke bad and never caught up) crud, we now need to hit $150 in this race ( our original $50 profit plus the $100 we are stuck). This time we get a 2-1 play and drop $75 on him

Lets progress a little further. lets say you lose 6 races in a row which WILL happen to everyone at some point in a season. After losing your last bet you are $175 down + the 50 you want to make so we must bet $112 in our fourth race. We lose so now are down $289 + the 50 so we need to make $339 in our fifth race soooooooo. We bet $170 (lets assume these are all 2-1 shots. We lose again We are now down $459 + the 50 so we need to make $499 in our sixth race. We now need to make$549 in the seventh race and so on and so on. God forbid you like a 6-5 shot in this race. Pretty soon you are betting so much you are betting against yourself especially at the smaller tracks

If you've got the kind of cash on hand to stick with it this would probably work--but if you've got that kind of cash why do you only want to make $100 a day?

[penguinfan]

$100 was just an easy figure to work with thats all. I do see the down side of having an extra large bet just to profit $50 (in this example) but with a large enough bankroll it still looks liek a winning proposition.

Throw in dutching 2 horses in a race and your wager amount goes up significantly, but do you think you (or anyone) can't pick 2 winners a day with two choices in each race? And along those lines, why is a 20% win ratio so out of the question (assuming a 10 race card)? I am not arguing, I just want the info and appreciate the replys.

Penguinfan

[cj]

Originally posted by penguinfan
... And along those lines, why is a 20% win ratio so out of the question (assuming a 10 race card)? I am not arguing, I just want the info and appreciate the replys.

Penguinfan

20% is reasonable, but not on any given day. You might hit 6 winners in one day, then 0 for 3 days in a row. You never know when that 20% is coming.

CJ

[Jaguar]

Please note, from an old and very experienced horseplayer: the technique don't work, won't work, and can't work. Too many low-priced horses, too many long runouts, too much outlay.

A simpler. cheaper, more practical method would be to set a daily win goal and bet the top DRF consensus pick, carrying losses forward, from day to day and - having hit the profit goal- going back down the ladder to the basic outlay.

In other words, set a profit target, step up- day after day as necessary, and then start over again. Since the consensus pick is around 33-36% winners, you won't have long runouts.

It's not that bettors can't pick winners, it's the lack of money management, betting exotics, and the runouts that kill their bankrolls, and this will never change, because the betting public shows no desire to smarten up.

All the best,

Jaguar

[dav4463]

If you KNOW you can pick two winners a day, why should you use anything other than a percentage of your bankroll? As your profits increase, your bets increase. A flat percentage of your bankroll on best bets is the way to go with win betting as far as I'm concerned. Make for example, 6 plays per day. 2 of them are your best bets....bet 4 or 5% of your bankroll on them. 2 of them are your medium bets, you like them, but not as much as your "best" bets....bet 3% on these, then play 2 longshots you like and put 1 or 2% of your bankroll on them. This way, you still get a variety of plays, but by classifying your races, you get the right amount on them based on the risk.

Myself, I bet more on the longshots, going for a big score, but I will also have wider fluctuation of my bankroll....going days without a winner is not for some people....others don't mind. It all depends on the type of winner you are best at selecting.

Personally, I do better with longshots. When I have to decide between a solid 8-5 horse and a 5-2 horse, it seems I inevitably choose the wrong one. I would rather look for a longshot capable of winning and put my money there, even knowing that I will lose more often. But I think it is more fun to cash a big ticket, even if I have to wait a while to do it.

[BillW]

Originally posted by penguinfan
Again, lets just ASSUME those two to be true

Penguinfan,

Of course it will work, there is no magic to the math. BUT as stated in the other posts, your assumptions are extremely dangerous (assuming you don't know someone on the inside ;) ). There are several schemes for casino games also that don't work due to the runout durations that exist. (triple the bet on a loss etc.)

Bill

[superfecta]

Originally posted by dav4463
Myself, I bet more on the longshots, going for a big score, but I will also have wider fluctuation of my bankroll....going days without a winner is not for some people....others don't mind. It all depends on the type of winner you are best at selecting.

Personally, I do better with longshots. When I have to decide between a solid 8-5 horse and a 5-2 horse, it seems I inevitably choose the wrong one. I would rather look for a longshot capable of winning and put my money there, even knowing that I will lose more often. But I think it is more fun to cash a big ticket, even if I have to wait a while to do it. I am in the same boat dav,I tried to do as D. Schmidt advised,make win bets on my selections and invariably I would end up on some short priced horses.I lost 11 races before I went back to playing small exotic tix.I believe it is some pychological block,I will bet 6 bucks on a tri or super with no qualms,but bet $5 on one horse to win and it clouds my perception.Funny that .Last night I spotted a live horse at Cal Expo,bet him in a super,and he wins at 70-1.No win tix of course but I had him in my super on top.I had no qualms about playing that super,but I had no intention of putting win money on him.If I had played him to win it would have messed with my mind.

[Dick Schmidt]

Penguin,

What you are looking at is an old money management system called a "Due Column." It has been around for at least 50 years and most likely is far older. The fact that it is well known and little used should send up a red flag. Two problems:

The long losing streak, as mentioned in another post. We all like to think we don't have losing streaks and can win at 20% forever, but it just isn't true. Just the other day, I lost 14 in a row, and I was betting TWO horses a race. This sort of small streak can happen to anyone, and with a due column, it is a disaster. I showed about a 12% profit on the day, but had I been betting a due, I'd have been making a $26,000 bet to win $100 according to a due column spreadsheet I have. Not realistic.

Even if you stick to low priced horses and are able to grind out 20-30% winners on a consistent basis, what you are really doing is limiting your upside with no downside protection at all. Ya, you can make $100 a day for a long time, but then comes the $26,000 bet and wipes out 6 months of profits. It seems to limit your losses, but what it is really doing is waiting in the tall grass to wipe you out. The program appeals to the risk-adverse, but in reality it increases your risk dramatically.

Be careful out there.

Dick

[penguinfan]

Thanks for the input gang, I will concede that this approach is flawed at best, so I will ask you the following, and please consider I am not trying to start an argument, just looking for a realistic approach to wagering horses.

If you can't pick 2 winners out of 10 (again not including prices below even money) then I say how do you make money playing horses? With a flat bet on a horse to win and ONLY 2 winners out of 10 then they better be at least 4-1 each just to break even, right? So what are your suggestions to someone who just bets win tickets. I am asking because I have some cash I can play with and am very certain I can hit 2 or more win tickets a day at the track I am playing.

Suggestions?

penguinfan

[anotherdave]

As someone who has been experimenting with due column betting (see previous posts a few months back where most people said I was nuts for even thinking about it!), I'm not so sure that it doesn't have possibilities. But basic due column is too short term - like I need to make $800 on this race. That won't work and the stress would mess most bettors up. So I'm working on a more long term rolling due column where you are not making up your losses all at once. There's always another race.

I'm a good handicapper, but I'd never say that I could pick at least 2 winners every day at the track. Most days - yes, every day - nope. I would say that I would pick at least 20 winners every 100. (And for sure 100 out of 500 races!) That's my problem with your assumption.

Keep testing it on paper. I have been for mine (and also on a small trial bankroll). I'm up and it has been fun.

There are no absolutes. We all must find out for ourselves what works and doesn't work.

But still a flat bettor,

AD

[JimG]

Originally posted by penguinfan
Thanks for the input gang, I will concede that this approach is flawed at best, so I will ask you the following, and please consider I am not trying to start an argument, just looking for a realistic approach to wagering horses.

If you can't pick 2 winners out of 10 (again not including prices below even money) then I say how do you make money playing horses? With a flat bet on a horse to win and ONLY 2 winners out of 10 then they better be at least 4-1 each just to break even, right? So what are your suggestions to someone who just bets win tickets. I am asking because I have some cash I can play with and am very certain I can hit 2 or more win tickets a day at the track I am playing.

Suggestions?

penguinfan

I suggest you keep your money in your pocket until you devise a method you are comfortable with that gets you a positive ROI flat betting to win. It is somewhat easier in my opinion to achieve this with a lower win pct...say 10-15% with a higher payoff avg. The downside is it leads to long runouts and you need a large bankroll. As you know cashing two bets a day at your track is usually not insurmountable....making a profit can be to many.

Jim

[GR1@HTR]

I'm waiting for BMeadows response. He will tell you will crash and burn...Dummy me would like to know the difference between progressive betting and using the Barry Meadown bankroll chart which indicated how much you should bet based on the off odds of the horse. To me it seems like the same difference.

Personally, I have fooled with a very mild progression betting sytle (betting every race on the card using high percentage computer selections)setting up several different track based accounts. I would run as many as 6 tracks/accounts and quit when I got a positve return on an account/track. Then it came down to the end of the day and I had 2 to 3 accounts/tracks with a loss I would combine them to create 1 super account and quit when the super account turned positve. Therefore in theory, creating a positive ROI for all accounts/tracks. This worked great for a while until one day when it went real sour...The success was interesting enuf where I mgiht persue it one day when I have more time during my day...

[Zaf]

Originally posted by penguinfan
Thanks for the input gang, I will concede that this approach is flawed at best, so I will ask you the following, and please consider I am not trying to start an argument, just looking for a realistic approach to wagering horses.

Suggestions?

penguinfan

You need to find a method that over the long haul with pick a certain percentage of winners at a certain average mutual. For example say you find a method where you can hit 25 % over the long haul with an average mutual of $9.00.

So for every $200 you wager in the long run you will collect $225.
This is nice, not easy to do but possible with a good methodology and a ton of discipline.

It may take years to find a method that can do this, with practice, trial & error. Perhaps you will luck out and find a nice software package that can help you find your winning method. Years of wagering and experience in the game will help also. For me discipline is the hardest part. I bet too many races, gotta have action.

After many years of trial & error, reading many books, I've found a way of betting that suits me and I feel i am close to turning a long term profit at the game.

I basically only play sprints (5.5-7F) dirt only. I play some turf routes. I am trying to specialize. With the aid of computer I make a daily sprint variant for about 6 circuits. When I evaluate a sprint I always evaluate the number of E , E/P , P , S runners and use Quirin Speed points. I always evaluate the race shape and see if there is someone who will benefit from todays matchup. I look at First Fraction, Turn Time , Final Fraction (all raw times) for all horses and see how they matchup. I prefer horses with better turn times and Final last fractions, if todays match up is favorable. I use my variants as an additional factor ( ex. if the horse I like in todays match up is exiting from a Fast 5 race, much the better) Of course I take a look at JKY, TNR, Horses Record, speed figures etc.
If a race has too many shippers, FTS , turf to dirt, route to sprint runners, I pass.

This is working out well , I am not getting rich but I am doing better. I hope one day to refine it to the point where I can consistantly bang out a profit. Discipline is the major roadblock for me. When I am let loose in a simulcasting joint, I cannot help myself.

I also recommend to keep reading this board. Read Everything !!!
Since I have joined I've learned alot about handicapping, computers, software programs etc. There are many good minds here and I have taken useful bits and pieces from them all.

Most of all I love this game. Even when I wasn't doing as well. It is sheer fun. Puzzle solving at its greatest.

As Roger Stein says "Today we have 62 Equine Puzzles to take your worries and troubles away"

ZAFONIC

[Fastracehorse]

Zafonic,

I am a player that is good at finding overlays with a very reasonable regularity.

Please explain to me an example of a software package that could help me track my horse playing economy, and why I would want to consider such a package.

Thanx,

fffasttt

[Zaf]

Originally posted by Fastracehorse
Zafonic,

I am a player that is good at finding overlays with a very reasonable regularity.

Please explain to me an example of a software package that could help me track my horse playing economy, and why I would want to consider such a package.

Thanx,

fffasttt

Presently I do not use any software packages. I am sticking to my daily variants & Bris/TSN Custom PP generator. I do not use any software because I am only betting around 15-20 races a week and custom pp generator can do almost all the calculations I require ( 1st Fraction, Turn Time , Final Fraction , Running Style, Speed Points, Pace and Speed Ratings).


BUT, On this board there are over 3500 posts regarding software programs. Many of the major programs are represented in this forum. Just do a search. There are many on this board who would be happy to share their experiences.

ZAFONIC

[WINMANWIN]

My betting strategy is to start with a bankroll of roughly $500 bucks.I am looking to make $200 to $300 a day.Once I hit my days pay, I quit for the day.I have been around to long to stop trying for the kill.My theory with the races is,they generaly give you x amount of races,you can handicap constructively,that are formful.With the advent of simulcasting,and races on cable.some of us have an advantage.hit and run....anyone try this method...............................

[Zaf]

Originally posted by WINMANWIN
My betting strategy is to start with a bankroll of roughly $500 bucks.I am looking to make $200 to $300 a day.Once I hit my days pay, I quit for the day.I have been around to long to stop trying for the kill.My theory with the races is,they generaly give you x amount of races,you can handicap constructively,that are formful.With the advent of simulcasting,and races on cable.some of us have an advantage.hit and run....anyone try this method...............................

Lets see , thats roughly a 40 - 60 % ROI each day. Tell me more !!!

ZAFONIC

[WINMANWIN]

I'll show you how...........just pick the races you like and bet them either in tri keys or exacta's.............if needed a win bet would do also.......I generaly,never get shut out on any card and do hit races.money management is my downfall.but since I quit when I hit my days pay,I have been doing good.The urge to play is uncany,but a day'S pay is a days pay....................

[MV McKee]

Math....ah, it makes so many things seem plausible when you do part of the equation. But the originator of this thread is actually in good company, it is very easy to see such a progression method as a path to profits, beacuse the long runout, while a statistically unlikely scenario, is, over time, also a certainty.
But there have been some very experienced racing writers, handicappers, etc. who have also been caught up in such "probability illusions".
I always remember reading a promonent racing/handicapping author proclaim the Pick3 as "the best bet in racing". I won't necessarily argue with his opinion, but he presented it as something of a fact, using mathematical data as evidence to back up his opinion. The mathematical evidence presented was a comparison of P3 payouts to what a 3 race parlay on the same races would have returned. If you think this is validates the P3 proclamation, then you will probably agree that Guadalupe Silva was the greatest hockey player of all time (Guadalupe scored over 2000 goals in a 15 year career while playing exclusively in a now defunct 4 team Mexican Hockey League).
But horse racing math is nowhere near as misleading as some others. Before you read on, please, take a moment and hazard a guess as to what you believe the Powerball (Multi-State) Lottery Jackpot has to reach for it to be a break-even proposition, and write it down. A number of people I know have labeled the lottery as "A tax on Stupidity"....you have no idea......




As I was driving by the Powerball billboard yesterday, and noticed that the
jackpot is up to 101 million, I thought to myself, it must be nearing a
break-even proposition. Now, I'm not one to gamble a lot of money on a lottery, but if
I truly believe that a bet will give me a positive ROI, I'll go for it.
So, of course, I figured it wouldn't hurt to do
some research on this lottery thing.

First of all, I WAS under the impression that the odds of hitting all 6
powerball numbers was about 1 in 60 million. Turns out this used to be the
case, until they changed things a bit in November of 1997. They increased
the number of white balls, and decreased the number of powerballs. Now the
odds of hitting all 6 are about 1 in 120 million. Now that's a hard number
to grasp- at least for me- 120,000,000. It doesn't look that big on paper,
but consider this: I read somewhere that the AVERAGE golfer has about a
1:43,000 chance at making a hole in one on any given swing (presumably on
Par 3's only). Also keep in mind that the AVERAGE golfer shoots 120 for 18
holes. I have to figure MY chances of an ace are at least 20x if not more
than that, and I have yet to collect one. Anyway, let's assume that one of
these lucky 50-handicappers aces the 180-yard second hole at the RESERVE
with his DRIVER one day, and decides that this must be his lucky day! So
after the round he immediately heads to the grocery store and picks up a $1
Powerball ticket. Well, assuming he were to play golf at the same level
for an eternity, he can bet on making almost 1400 more such aces before
hitting that lottery.

OK, Mike, you say, but people hit the big one all the time, so there must
be a break-even point, no matter how remote your chances. Plus there's all
of those smaller prizes. They must count for something! OK, let's look at
those smaller prizes. From the $100,000 match 5 (all 5 white balls) at 1:3
million (yes folks, that's about a 3% roi), to the $3 Power Ball ONLY at
1:70 (4.3% roi), the total ROI for the smaller prizes is about 17%.
Assuming you would have to pay about 35% of the $100K prize in taxes, and
that you could avoid taxes on all the others, this becomes about 16%.

So the Jackpot has to make up for the remaining 84%. Well, let's see...in
order for our $1 wager to earn $.84 on a 1-120million shot, the jackpot
must be...100 million. Perfect! We're right there right!
WRONG!
First of all, the Jackpot figure that is quoted is a 30-year annuity. The
lump sum cash option is about 55% of that.
Secondly, there's that pesky matter of TAXES. Almost another 50%
reduction.
And lastly, the annoying fact that OTHER people are playing as well! Let's
assume the jackpot were to get REALLY big. I figure on about 40 million
participants- so there's a 1-in 3 chance you will be splitting the pot in
two....meaning you need the pot to be about 30% bigger.

So, 130% of 100M divided by 55% of 50% and the magic number is...473
Million.

But there's one underlying assumption in all this. You have to cash in all
your winnings. I read on the PowerBall page that about 12% of all prizes
go unclaimed...from about 30% of all $1 prizes (before they changed the
rules) to several $100,000 prizes. So if you're not one to pay much
attention, make it an even HALF BILLION (Or as I like to call it, A-Rod's
salary).

I think I'll save my money for the first Saturday in May....(two dolla
soopa-peckta!) :)

-Mike

[penguinfan]

MV McKee, believe it or not, that may be my favorite reply to the original question. If I were to clarify my actual intent of this thread it would be that I am VERY confident in the ability to hit winners on a WIN ticket and I am curious if it is even POSSIBLE to win at this game or is it just for the folks that cash those monster tickets once in a while. If I may use at least part of your logic, if you hit a $1 superfecta that pays you 20 grand then there are 19999 worth of losers out there for each of those tickets, plus whatever the take out is at the particular track you are playing, I just don't like those odds. I have long since quit trying for the big score and am trying to work out a way that WIN tickets can become profitable, I am still in search of it.

Thanks for the posts and keep em coming
penguinfan

[MV McKee]

Actually, yes it is POSSIBLE to profit from horse race wagering. But both the scenarios you mentioned, an occasional big superfecta score or "grinding" out a profit through win betting are possible paths to a positive bottom line. In fact, until such point as every horse in every race is bet in exact proportion to his chance(s), a profit will always be possible.
I would suggest that whatever strategy you choose to pursue should be based on your peronality type, and what you are most comfortable with. One could write a novel about this, but suffice to say your comfort level with the various scenarios a given strategy will put you in are (IMO) far more important than any initial profit/loss numbers you may see. If the long/short runout, high/low payoff and missed opportunity scenarios that are an inherent part of your chosen strategy affect your equilibrium, then (for you) that strategy will fail, no matter how fundamentally sound it is.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by penguinfan
MV McKee, believe it or not, that may be my favorite reply to the original question. If I were to clarify my actual intent of this thread it would be that I am VERY confident in the ability to hit winners on a WIN ticket and I am curious if it is even POSSIBLE to win at this game or is it just for the folks that cash those monster tickets once in a while. If I may use at least part of your logic, if you hit a $1 superfecta that pays you 20 grand then there are 19999 worth of losers out there for each of those tickets, plus whatever the take out is at the particular track you are playing, I just don't like those odds. I have long since quit trying for the big score and am trying to work out a way that WIN tickets can become profitable, I am still in search of it.

Thanks for the posts and keep em coming
penguinfan I don't think anyone would say it is not possible to make a profit betting strictly to win,but it is widely accepted that exotics are a suckers bet.But I am starting to believe Andy Beyer when he says most players make their money by large windfalls,not small methodical wagers on a day in, day out basis.The reason I believe exotics are a way to profits is because it is how I make money.If I tried to bet to win only I doubt I would do as well as I do.But I don't begrudge any win bettors,even though they ridicule my betting method at times.To each his own,I will give my opinion,take it for what its worth.Andys book "the Winning Horseplayer" has two chapters on the psycology of horseplayers and money management and those are more insightful than his numbers he touts.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by MV McKee
Actually, yes it is POSSIBLE to profit from horse race wagering. But both the scenarios you mentioned, an occasional big superfecta score or "grinding" out a profit through win betting are possible paths to a positive bottom line. In fact, until such point as every horse in every race is bet in exact proportion to his chance(s), a profit will always be possible.
I would suggest that whatever strategy you choose to pursue should be based on your peronality type, and what you are most comfortable with. One could write a novel about this, but suffice to say your comfort level with the various scenarios a given strategy will put you in are (IMO) far more important than any initial profit/loss numbers you may see. If the long/short runout, high/low payoff and missed opportunity scenarios that are an inherent part of your chosen strategy affect your equilibrium, then (for you) that strategy will fail, no matter how fundamentally sound it is. If you could teach that to horseplayers this would be a very tough game to beat.Thank God many people drawn to gambling don't have that mindset or discipline!

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by superfecta
I don't think anyone would say it is not possible to make a profit betting strictly to win,but it is widely accepted that exotics are a suckers bet.

Do (intelligent) people really believe that any more?

I think the exotics are unquestionably easier to profit with than straight betting -- the more exotic the better. Why? The more complicated the bet, the less efficient the pools. People say "oh the take is higher" but the increased inefficiency is of greater magnitude.

Now, you do need to be better funded to play exotics successfully (the more exotic, the more funds you'll need), but on a mathematical basis exotics are better bets.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Do (intelligent) people really believe that any more?

I think the exotics are unquestionably easier to profit with than straight betting -- the more exotic the better. Why? The more complicated the bet, the less efficient the pools. People say "oh the take is higher" but the increased inefficiency is of greater magnitude.

Now, you do need to be better funded to play exotics successfully (the more exotic, the more funds you'll need), but on a mathematical basis exotics are better bets. Game Theory,I don't know if most people betting believe it or not,but most published works (and there are not many "new" books)say this is a bad bet.
I agree with you,take and size of pool doesn't concern me as much as my ability to pick a winning(profitable) ticket.
What may also be a necessary asset to winning exotics is patience in the face of long losing streaks.Most people can't handle the near misses,it begins to affect their handicapping.Chasing their losses.Just trying to cash a ticket.Betting too many combos for a too small return.Hence the belief exotics are bad bets.One can lose 50 races betting a super,but winning just one pays for the losses plus a good profit.Or one can bet $24 each race,no matter how good there chance of hitting is,hit one in ten and still lose money.

[penguinfan]

Well I am ashamed and must admit that after betting the first 6 races at Fairgrounds and missing all the way with horses running 2nd or the horse I was worried about beating me, beating me I gave up the win ticket and went for a 3 horse exacta box and cashed the $98.80 exacta in the 7th. I am now more lost than ever!

penguinfan

[Lefty]

penquinfan, the map out of the wilderness is individual betting records.
I kow it's been said many times many ways but, it's true, it's true.

[BMeadow]

Short-term success does not equal long-term success, which is the problem with all progression and due-column methods.

For instance, if I want to make money in one day at the track, I can probably do it by betting every favorite, then tripling my bet after a loser, until a favorite finally wins. Usually, this will be a winning strategy for any particular day.

However, eventually there will come a day when a huge loss wipes out not only all previous profits, but my entire lifetime savings as well.

It doesn't matter whether you set up a stop-loss, or wait until some result has happened (e.g., five straight favorites have lost before beginning a sequence), or are a terrific handicapper. The mathematical flaws in all these betting methods have been fully explained in many texts.

Still, these methods never die. And probably never will, because they seem so terrific.

Only they're not.

No matter what betting methods you use, you need to consider several factors:

* how likely a particular bet is to win (you can't bet the same amount on a 73-1 shot as you can on a 6-5 shot because the longshot will win far less often and you'll risk losing your bankroll during a bad streak)
* the amount of your perceived overlay (if you believe that two horses should be 3-1, you should bet more on the one that's 9-1 than on the one who's 7-1, though not a LOT more because you may have mishandicapped the race)
* the size of your bankroll (you can't make $50 bets if your total stake is only $200)
* your impact on the odds (you can't make $400 show bets at Beulah Park without killing your price)
* your emotional betting threshhold (you can't make $70 bets if you go on tilt if you lose one of them)

None of these are addressed by progression or due-column methods.

[kenwoodall]

i hate to lose even 1 bet so i practice on the form a lot without betting. I am 90.3% itm and abou 43% spot wins. i look for a consistant horse peaking, correct trainer placement, a value bet regardless of odds, and if there is a false favorite. I bet the same amout to show as not to lower the payout and usually the same amount to win each time.

I bet to win if a contender at longshot odds or if there is a horse i would never bet against. In races of 5 or less i am in the black betting the field against a chalk horse.
R. E. Russell Baze= I am 60% betting him to win. In non-stakes races consider betting Bailey only on speed horses and E. Coa only if the horse can win close to the pace 3-wide!!