can money management work ? dont ask me I only think it can

[freeneasy]

Ive had this idea for quite some time now and I dont know if its already out there but Ive seen bits and pieces of it here and there in other money management plans, but heres the idea.

Your play (method, system or whatever you play by) will probably have to show a flat bet profit.

You are flat betting.

You have a 20 % win percentage and oh, a 20 % profit return on the dollar invested.

You need to find out or know what type of losing streak to legitimately expect, based on having a win percentage of 20 %.

With a 20 % win percentage you can expect, somewhere down the line, to encounter a losing streak of some 49 races.

Add to this figure of 49 expected losing races one safety race to make up a total of 50 races or as they are going to be, 50 bets. (Add as maney safety races as you like)

You flat bet 50 races.

Your starting capitol will be $1000.

50 races divided into $1000 gives you $20 per bet.

You are making $20 per bet for 50 bets.

$20 is 2 % of $1000. You are flat betting 2% of your capitol.

At the end of 50 bets made, you have a capitol increase of $200, added to the SC gives you $1200

Heres where the triginomitree comes in.

You can do one of two things here,

1) Repeat the entire procedure, flat betting 2% of your $1200 capitol which will give you the same number of bets, at 50, and at the same time increase the bet amount from $20 to $24 per bet. Old hat, mmaybe, or you can

2) Lower the betting percentage of 2 % (of capitol ) down to a "betting percentage of capitol" of 1.5 %.
This gives you a bet of $18 per bet (1.5 % of $1200 = $18) and increases the number of bets you can make at $18 per bet, to 66.66 bets ( $1200 divided by $18=66.66 or 100 divided by 1.5=66.66) WHICH, and heres just about the whole point to the fact of the matter, which increases the safety bet, of one bet above the 49 losses you can expect with a win percen of 20 %, up to 16-17 safety bets.

To try shorten it up a bit heres the main theme. You want to find a bet level your completely satisfied with and you want that bet level to be within a range ( number) of bets that your completely confident in. Getitgotitgood

Exm. You want to max out at $100 per every bet you make and you have an expected loss of 49 races in a row somewhere down the line. You might want a safety zone of 150 bets. Thats 100 bets above the 49 expected loses to give you that added insurence that you are not going to hit 150 straight losers and go bust. Now to make 150 bets at $100 dollars a pop takes a capitol of $15,000... and you only got a $1000s working capitol.

I feel pretty confident that this could be a workable program.

Ok back to the math. I thinks. On the first goround (50 bets) you end up with a new total capitol of $1200. You can stay at the 2% betting of new capitol ($24 per bet) for 50 bets, or give yourself a new safety margin, drop down to 1. 5% betting of new capitol ($18 per bet) for 66.66 bets.
Chances are your not going to lose 49 races in a row and you would still feel quite comfortable betting at $20 a pop, but when you start getting up there at 50, 100, 200, 400 dollars a pop, you'll probably want to start giving yourself a more maximum safty increase (higher number of safty bets) to protect your capitol as your increases. But for now that comes later.

Iam going to stay at 2%. 50 more bets, 20% roi, new total 20% of 1200 + $1200= a new working capitol of $1440.

now what will happen if you drop your betting percentage to 1.5% of $1440 ? You will be able to make 66.66 bets at $21.6 per bet. Heres what happened. The bet level has increased to $22 and the safty level for the number of bets tobe made in the cycle has increased from one bet over 49 at 50 bets to 17 bets over 49 at 66.66. The $1440 capitol is protected by 17 added bets.

Now you can stay at that 1.5 betting level and build up your capitol from there with a nice safty margin of betting $1440 by making 67 bets at $22 per bet as opposed to betting $1440 by making 50 bets at $29 per bet.

But what the heck you say, Lets keep the action where it is. That is at 2% bet of $1440 capitol for another 50 bets.

2% of $1440=$28.8 that is 29 bucks per bet for the next 50 bets. Au auu na noway, 50 race loseing streak, mmm yeah I guess it could happen but naa lets go fot it. You win. 1440 times 20%= $1728 new betting capitol.

Ok 3 cycles have gone through and the bets have increased each time from $20 to $24 to $29. The new betting capitol is $1728.

If you bet 1.5% of the $1728, then that will give you a per race bet of $26 for 67 bets. A little lower then $29 per race at 50 races but a lot safer. And the whole thing of the matter is, is as the capitol increases the bet size increases. And as the bet size increases my theroy is you'll want to and need to play with a more increasing confidence.

One of the good things about this is you can decrease the betting percentage by .25 at a time keeping you stableized at pretty much of a maximum bet size and still making for a little bit of a higher safety margin. And it would seem that the transition from one level to the next would be a recognizable and familiar one having a form of graduation to it.

If you want to max out at $200 per each bet made, I would want to make that type of wager over a span of at least 150 bets and not over a span of some 50 bets. That could come down to, to much money to risk without ample eniugh surcurity. $200 per wager over a betting period of 150 bets means having a betting capitol of $30,000. Over a betting period of 100 bets is $20,000. I think you'll find its not the losing of $200 but rather its the losing of $20-$30,000 that probably could have been avoided with a sound approach to this game.

The idea is adding safty levels as the bankroll and the bet size increase until the desired level of play is reached. And when that desired level of play is reached it is approached and reinforced with a desired level of maximum confidence.

I think it has some merit. You ?

to beeeeeeeeed.

[Dick Schmidt]

Free,

Sure it has some merit. Any plan is better than no plan. It is awfully complex, but if you enjoy playing with numbers, it is OK. All you're really doing is betting a declining percentage of your bankroll as you win more money. I'm not sure exactly why you would want to do this, but if it pleases you, go for it. The only reason I can see for doing this is that somewhere, deep inside, you expect to start losing and you are building your entire money management system around this expectation.

Personally, I am always trying to get as much money through the windows as I can and remain fiscally sound. At some tracks, the pool size limits you. At others, your bankroll and comfort limit are the limits. I feel that the job of money management is to increase your bets in a rational style as fast as possible without flirting with gamblers ruin. In the case you talk about, I'd just bet the 2% and forget the rest. If you start to lose, your declining bankroll will provide an additional cushion.

Dick

[hurrikane]

Interesting idea Free.

I agree with Dick though(imagine that). When I started building a bankroll I started with a 4% bet, very aggressive. As the bank built I decreased down to now 1.5%. I did this only because that is where I should have been from the beginning. The 4% was an aggressive move and i was willing to accept the risk. Now I am not.

If your win % warrents a 2% bet then you should bet 2%. Anything else and you are robbing yourself.

Now if you don't think you are really good enough to maintain the 20% wins and a 2% bet..that's a whole different story for anouther thread.

Good Luck

[freeneasy]

actually i should have entitled this thread something like "Having The Psycological Advantage. Dont go to the track without it"

Dick, the basic reason for the gradual drop in the betting percentage of the bankroll is to keep you at a betting level (bet amount per each bet made) and as the bankroll matures, increases the number of bets in which you will be making while betting through the entire bankroll. And in doing this eventually reach a point where the bankroll affords you the ability to make 100 bets at $50 per as opposed to 50 bets at $100 per bet. This to many would be a psycological advantage. From there you can continue on to grow your bankroll up to the point where you reach the level of making the same 100 bets but at $100 per bet.

hurricane started out building his bankroll at a 4% bet of capitol per each bet. Thats 25 bets. And depending on your winning percentage and the amount size of your starting capitol as well as how much of a effect, psycologically and otherwise, the lose of this bankroll would have had in his fervor to build a substancial bank, you can say with a shudder, thats ONLY 25 bets. And you have to give him an exceediently well done indeed. But now lets ask hurricane the question: Hey hurricane, be honest, the total capitol bankroll you now have in your play; would you divide it all up into 25 bets ? Doubt it. No. Why ? because its a lot of mony to lose and if I hit a loseing streak I'am still strong with my bankroll being divided up into 67 bets. And I aint gonna lose no 67 bets, not in arow for sure. Thank you hurricane for that inciteful interview. I'm guessing. But the point Iam making here is the one of having all the psycological advantages that you need in order to come out on top of this game and what the hell all it is that its going to take in getting you there.

[hurrikane]

Free,
my point was, the only reason I reduced my bet was because my percent was out of line with my expected win %. Like I said it was agressive. You are absolutely right. I would never divide my bank between 25 bets and go for broke. I have however suffered 42 loses in a row. That is 2 more than pridicted by my win%. Fortunately I had gotten my bank up and my bets down to 1.5% so the effect was not drastic.
Although..losing 42 bets in a row will definately give you shrinkage. :D

The other point was...If you don't take the full 2% then you are not maximizing your potential. Unless, as I said, you don't feel confident you can sustain the 23% winners. Otherwise I think you need to maximize every little piece of the pie to survive.

[superfecta]

Discipline.Staying the course when you lose 100 races(I went a little over) when your win percentage avg. should be around 60,max.You then win three races that gives you a 175% return on investment.But most will not get there,they are blowing the bankroll on just getting a winner ,never mind a profit.Just get me a winner. Thats why I get away from a specific # of winners ,I concentrate on betting for a healthy profit for each race,with logical contenders.Except for last year,it serves me well.I made a little run at the end,but still didn't make a profit.That meaning for the time invested and the effort.But since I spent most of last year getting divorced,maybe i can use that as an excuse?:D

[Dick Schmidt]

Free,

I should hope to hell you don't lose 67 bets in a row! You might consider something different here. You seem to be slightly risk adverse, which is generally a good thing. I am too. Consider betting two horses per race and bump your bets up to 4 or 5% of bank. I've been betting this way most of the time for years and rarely lose more than 3 or 4 in a row. I find that it also smoothes out the ups and downs of one horse betting and gives me a much more consistent return.

It also fits with my desire to shove as much money through the windows as possible and remain sane.

Dick

[Hosshead]

Dick, I've read in some of your other posts that you bet 2 horses per race. Do you bet the same amount on each? Or different amounts depending on the odds (which we don't even know till after the race anymore) And is that 4 or 5% for both horses combined ?

[Rick]

Here's one of those cases where I disagree with Dick's advice, but only because it may not work for most others. It may very well be the best way for Dick to bet, but it assumes that you'll be able to find two horses in each race and still not sacrifice any of your edge. That wouldn't be the case for most other players.

If I can find an overlay on my top ranked horse in about half of the races then I'd expect to find overlays on both of the top two in only about 1/4 of the races. So, I'd probably have to cut my action in half and I doubt that I'd double my ROI on the remaining races. The two horse bets would probably allow a somewhat higher bet size but I don't think on balance that I'd be more profitable that way because I'd be ignoring so many one horse overlay races. My guess would be that most other players find overlays on one horse in 1/3 or less of the races so it would be even worse for them.

So, my objection is similar to that I have against books that give you advice like the following:

1. Learn to pick the right paceline so that you can select two horses 65-70% of the time.

2. Make sure you get 50% or more ROI.

3. Bet them both and make a ton of money.

Whether it's possible for someone else to get past step 1 is irrelevant as to whether you're likely to get there.

[JustMissed]

I started using two horse bets after reading some of your old post and can tell you it has been working great. I only use the two horse bet when I cannot decide between my two final contenders. I am of course a one track bettor but know why this works even better for you playing multiple tracks online.

I'm not that great a picker but can honestly say I cash on most of my two horse bets.

I only play the exacta and/or trifecta now when I have a live key horse to work with and can cover more combination. Otherwise I play win or two horse win or just pass the race(which I have found the most difficult thing to do).

Also, if the two odds are close I just do a 60/40. If there is a significant spread I do a Dutch.

Thanks,

JustMissed


:)

[kitts]

Betting two horses to win in the same race just does not work for me. I have tried it many times and have more than one 1,000 race workout to show that I can, and do, lose more than 5 races in a row. And a losing ROI. It's the same old story, if the method "fits" you, use it. But test the heck out of it first.

[GR1@HTR]

Hehe...I used to be very anti 2 horse betting...Now my best bets are when I have 4 win bets/race(all overlays)...How bout that for total madness...

[Rick]

I'm not against multiple horse betting in some races but I think you really have to hate the favorite in order for it to be a good idea. In races like that, you wouldn't have a high win % anyway since you'd be betting on a bunch of longshots. Yeah, I know some of you can get 70% winners on two overlays but I can't.

By the way, I should mention that another way of looking at overlays is by how low your method ranks the favorite. If the favorite ranks say 3rd or lower according to your method, your first choice is likely to be an overlay.

[formula_2002]

Free, no amount of money management will succeed if you don’t have an edge.
Do you have an edge on EVERY bet? That’s the first question. Next is how much of an edge in each odds range.
To find out those answers you need to run tens of thousands of races.
The best money management is….don’t bet until you know your edge. (If that happened the tracks would go broke..)


Once you get by that, just dutch your bets..dutching eliminates volatility, and in the long run, your flat bet profit will equal your dutch bet profit.

If I had the time or inclination, I'd write a program on your theory
however, i'm still trying to convince myself that I may have an edge.

Good Luck

Joe M

[hurrikane]

I have yet to find a mulitple bet selection that works.
I know people who do use it. I can't get it to work.

But I look everyday. Anything to get one more dollar stuffed through the windows. :D

[TomC]

I used to play 2 horses per race. But it always came down to the same thing. If you check your records, your profits really are coming from the horses that are paying well. 5-1 and up. Sure, the lower prices may give you a feeling of comfort, but cashing tickets is not the answer. Making a profit is. You really are just trading dollars on the lower payoffs, or even losing a bit. So I always end up with my same plan...take my two horses that I would bet to win, but only bet the 5-1 and up ones.
The losing streaks are longer, but I have been through this for so long, that they dont even phase me. Also, playing just 1 horse allows me to increase my bets. No crazy progressions. But when I lose 10 races, I step up my bet. For example, if you are betting $50, then lose 10, you step up to $60. Again, its a small increase, but having an extra $10 on a $20 or $30 winner gets back a lot of extra money.
I would not suggest this for everyone. If betting 2 horses does well for you, then stick with it. Actually for me, I have even moved my odds up to 8-1 most of the time. I will play lower prices occassionaly when my stats show it make a profit. But most of my plays are my legitimate top or second picks, that are giving me nice odds.
TomC

[Rick]

Betting two horses would work fine if the second horse was at least break-even because it would allow you to increase your bet on the race enough to show more profit. That's not so easy to do in practice though except when you like two longshots. If you start looking at the numbers you can prove that two short priced horses couldn't possibly have a high ROI because their's just not enough money to go around even if the other horses always lost. So, when someone claims 70% winners and 50% profit, they're saying that they can outperform the public on their top two picks by almost 20% AND that they will be at long enough odds to make windfall profits. That's a pretty tall order.

[JustMissed]

QUOTE:
TWO HORSE WIN BETTING

A basic tenet of followers of the Sartin Methodology is betting two horses to win. Not everyone “buys in” to this because you are guaranteed one losing ticket. However, we do like two horse win betting and here is why. A very good handicapper will probably average about 30 to 35 percent wins betting one horse to win. The two horse win bettor will probably average about 60 to 65 percent wins. Now it is true that the two horse win bettor will always have one losing ticket and if both bettors wager the same dollar amount on a race, the two horse win bettor will have a smaller average net profit per winning bet. Here is what tips the scale in favor of the two horse bettor. Losing streaks will be far less frequent and will be shorter in duration. Your chances of “tapping out” will be greatly diminished. Because of this, the percentage of your win bet bankroll that you wager on a race can very safely be increased from the 3 to 5 percent range to the 5 to 8 percent range. The disadvantage of a guaranteed losing ticket is more than offset by a higher win percentage at a higher average bet size.

If there is a clear cut winner, then a one horse win bet is in order as long as it is an overlay. If two horses have a decent shot at the race and at least one is a significant overlay, then bet them both. If three horses figure, then bet the two that are overlays
END QUOTE

Rick, I copied this from the ALL-Ways site, Newsletter Number 4. I thought it was a pretty good read and pointed out what you did except they seem to say the larger bet size is a key factor.

Like most things, it may not be appropriate for all circumstances or all players, but for a newbie like me, it is a great way to stay even and build a bankroll while learning.

JustMissed

P.S. The All-Ways site is at frandsen.com

[Rick]

JustMissed,

Yeah, the theory is fine but you have to find two horse combinations that are overlays and that's much harder than finding one horse overlays. As with most of the Sartin (and AllWays) stuff, they just say that you can do it without offering any proof and when everyone else trys it doesn't work out so well. Then the answer is that if you pay for this seminar or buy this software it will all become clear. Yada, yada, yada, etc.

[Rick]

Whether you want to look for the less likely case of two horse overlays or play the more likely case of one horse overlays has a lot to do with what your costs are for downloading files. Those with unlimited downloads who use software that allows them to avoid printing everything would find it feasible to play many tracks with fewer plays per track. Those who have to pay for each track downloaded and print them would prefer to find as many plays as possible on each card.

[JustMissed]

I thought the ALL-ways article was pretty honest and straightforward.

I do not use their product. I buy the $1.50 TSN Ultimate PP's with Quick Play comments but I do appreciate the fact that the ALL-Ways folks put their newsletters out there for free.

I'm not sure how close you read the excerpt but did you note the following:

"If there is a clear cut winner, then a one horse win bet is in order as long as it is an overlay. If two horses have a decent shot at the race and at least one is a significant overlay, then bet them both. If three horses figure, then bet the two that are overlays".

That looks like a pretty straight forward betting strategy to me and appears to be consistent with the way you bet one horse overlays.

Thanks,

JustMissed

[Rick]

JustMissed,

The part I'm confused about is the following:

"If two horses have a decent shot at the race and at least one is a significant overlay, then bet them both."

Does that mean that I can bet two horses, one of which is an overlay and one of which is an underlay? I'd rather not do that. It is true that there are some cases where it would be justified if the underlay is a very small one, but generally you need to have both be at least break even in order to have a good bet. If you really want to look into all of the details you should read "Bankroll Control" by Pascual (not recommended for the mathematically challenged).

[JustMissed]

Yeah, I see you point and I agree that what they say may be a little confusing.

I worked through a few two horse Dutch bets and I guess this is where ALL-Ways is correct.

Horse A, final odds 2-1, bet $4

Horse B, final odds 3/1, bet $3

If either wins I collect $12. Less the $7 ticket cost, profit is $5 or 71% ROI. I can assume that my fair odds on both horses would be close, like say 2-1, or why would I bet both.

I could be wrong but I consider an overlay to be when final odds are greater than 'my fair odds', which are of course my opinion of the outcome expressed as a percentage. If I didn't think both horses had a similiar or equal chance to win, then I wouldn't even be doing a two horse bet to begin with and would be betting one horse or passing.

Of course if I could get 71% ROI 65% of the time I would be writing my own book(From the Caribbean of course).

JustMissed

:)

[kitts]

The math issues are sound but would somebody direct me to that very good handicapper that is getting 30-35 percent wins? I have never met a player that could convice me they were getting 35 percent wins. I have surrendered some time ago since my average mutuel is around 7/1. But, if I could find a 35% person, I would sure be eager to hang out.

[Rick]

kitts,

Well, if you look at the claims of the Sartin disciples there are many people who can get 65-70% betting two horses. That would work out to 32.5-35% average for each and they can't be betting very many favorites in order to get their high ROI. Take the claims of one handicapping genius (taken from a book that most of you have read) of 70% wins and +50% ROI. Think of a $100,000 pool with about 80,000 returned to the winning players. The genius has to select horses that have no more than about 37% of the money bet on them in order to get his 50% ROI. He wins 70% of the time on his two selections but the favorite wins 33% of the time, so he has to bet on a few favorites, but they have to be overlays and his other horse can only have about 4% of the money bet on it (longshot). If he can find a combination of a second favorite and a third favorite that win 70% of the time that would work too. But his average odds on each of the two horses have to be around 4.4-1 in order for it to even be mathematically possible. Simply amazing.

[kitts]

Rick--

"simply amazing" indeed. What a hoot!

[JustMissed]

I copied this from the turpedia site:

"Here are the attainable goals for skillful handicappers:

Win% Aver. Odds Edge
30% 5-2 .05
33% 5-2 .15
35% 5-2 .22
40% 5-2 .40
The average odds are held constant at 5-2 because in reality they do not vary much on key horses to win.

The edge is equal to your return on investment (ROI). If your edge is 20%, that means for every dollar you bet, you can expect to get back $1.20. Investors, savers, and business men and women would be pleased to do as well."

Do you guys think these figures are resonable? I think they might be if the player only plays those races he thinks he can win and passes those races that he feels he doesn't have an edge.

The key is to probably to only play selective races and passing races that you aren't certain you can win.

I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone who plays most of the races on a card has any hope of getting close to 35-40 win percentage over the long haul.

JustMissed
:)

[kitts]

JustMissed-
I think Turfpedia is a James Quinn site and the quote sounds like him. I had the opportunity to spend time with James Quinn in the 90s and he seemed to be in that 33% hit rate on prime bets. He is a very thorough and knowledgeable player. Times have changed since then so it might be time for Mr. Quinn to re-check those stats. Although he is a very meticulous person and probably has. But 35% is too big a stretch for me.

[Speed Figure]

Turfpedia is james quinn's website.

[JustMissed]

Thanks for the help.

All I know about horseracing I learned from the net and from a few books and personal observations. I really don't know anyone personally to get an honest answer as to how much money the better players are making.

There are a few old guys that I keep my eye on. They always bring their paperwork to the track, sit alone, don't talk, don't drink and place very few bets. When I have a chance I try to watch them cash their tickets and trust me, it's big money.

Also, I see a young jockey, almost everytime I'm at the track on the third level. The comes in between the next to last and last race, in his street cloths, walks quickly to an Amtote machine, puts in a ticket and get back a credit voucher which he takes to a clerk for cashing. Last week I tried to see how much he cashed but the clerk was throwing down $50's so quickly I honestly lost count. It was some serious cash.

Anyway, you see my point. I read so much bull on the net it appears that nobody can beat the races but then when I go to the track I see certain people walking out with huge amouts of cash. It is very confusing.


Anyway, I'll keep after it.

Thanks,

JustMissed
:)

[kitts]

JustMissed-
Keep the faith!
I lost consistently from 1949 (Age 14) to 1989 but I haven't looked back since!

[LOU M.]

The question should be how many tickets does this jockey throw away? You may be only seeing one side of the situation.I think it was Dave Feldman who said "I wish I could be a bookie in the jockey room ,I"d be a millionaire".One hot horse does not make a successful horseplayer.Perserverance and hard work will beget success.Horseplaying is a constant learning experience.Best of luck.

[hurrikane]

Just Missed,
there is a lot of info out there.
All I can say is

listen to everyone
believe nothing
test everything before you put down your hard earned winnings
believe in youself (ie don't be afraid to pull the trigger)
have fun!

Good luck

PS. if you get to 35% come find me. I've never seen it. You can do very very well at 20-25%. 35% with any meaningful ROI would be unheard of...

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by kitts
JustMissed-
Keep the faith!
I lost consistently from 1949 (Age 14) to 1989 but I haven't looked back since!

Hey that gives me hope too. Hope that the last 14 years have more than evened out the first 40? If not, still must have been a lot of fun.

AD

[Aussieplayer]

Why does 30% or 40% seem incredible in this thread & others? Can someone explain?

I can only assume that you want to qualify the statement by saying the handicapper must also show a profit?

If you bet all odds on horses, what will your win% be? Around 50% for you guys as well. If you can, by handicapping, eliminate some (perhaps at your local track due to physicality) - you can probably hit at >50% and make a profit.

I know several handicappers who hit with 40% (and in one case a guy who has a number of plays and hits 50%+). And that's with no odds filtering. All you have to do is find the "standout" plays, that still have a little value attached to them.

I think the difference with US racing could be the number of bets. The guy I know who hits 50% + with a "number" of plays. That'd be (from memory) from about 14 or so plays per week.

Which I get the feeling that, in your terminology, is being very selective - spot playing if you like. Is that correct?

Cheers & best,
AP

[Rick]

I have personally known players who hit 35% winners with better than 30% profit but it was on carefully selected spot plays, like maybe 3 per day at all tracks. I think what people are saying is impossible is getting 35% wins playing every race and still showing a profit. But there are a few tracks where that may be possible, just not very many. It really depends on the universe you're talking about. Even 30% wins playing every track and every race is hard to do without showing a loss. My results for the last 1839 races playing every race at 3 tracks were 28.87% wins and 1.16% profit. But, of course, I only really play about approximately half of those races which are overlays. That's only been in the last few years though. Before that, everyting profitable that I ever played was in about the 18-22% wins range.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by Aussieplayer


I think the difference with US racing could be the number of bets. The guy I know who hits 50% + with a "number" of plays. That'd be (from memory) from about 14 or so plays per week.

Which I get the feeling that, in your terminology, is being very selective - spot playing if you like. Is that correct?

Cheers & best,
AP

Glad to see you back posting. I only started playing around May 2002, and you were posting quite a bit back then. I always enjoyed your post and comments and glad to see you are back.

I think you may have answered my question regarding winning percentages and two horse betting. I think the answer lies in the number of plays a person has during a day/week. If a good player only plays 14 plays per week but these are plays that he has really worked hard on handicapping, knows all the horses, knows all the trainers and jockeys, at the same track every day and believes he has picked the winner, I can't see any reason why he might not be able to win more than half his bets.

Now if you compare this selective bettor(above) with a guy who uses a good piece of software, plays mutiiple tracks via video, and has a limited amout of time to select and make up his ticket, he can't possibly obtain the same win percentage as the selective bettor. In order to increase his profits he has to play more races at smaller bets.

Well, thank you, I think I have it figured out now. It is like the difference between Walmart and Neiman-Marcus. Walmart buys cheap, sells cheap, has a small markup, but does a tremendous volume of sales. Neiman-Marcus has high priced items, with very high markups but doesn't sell near the items Walmart does. Fortunately for them, they both make money. They just have a different approach to the way they retail merchandise.

Well, Aussie, that make perfect sense to me.

Thank you for your post.

JustMissed


:)