Best money management method for straight win bettor?

[so.cal.fan]

I would like some opinions on this subject from you guys.
I know most of you are exotic players, but are any of you straight pool bettors?
Is it best to stick to WIN only?
WIN/PLACE?
Flat bets?

I'm planning a concentrated attack on the upcoming Santa Anita meet.
I'm thinking of a 1/25 ratio. Flat bets to win. When starting capital doubles.....increase accordingly.
What do you think?
I know the win pool should show the best ROI, but some people think it's important to conserve capital, cut down losing streaks.

I'm interesed in any ideas.
Thanks in advance.

so.cal.fan :)

[Robert Fischer]

I'm thinking of a 1/25 ratio.

does that mean 4% of your bankroll per bet?

Sure , Win betting only is fine. Win is the highest value standard wager. Betting longshots does increase the risk of ruin with a small bankroll, but that may be more complicated than you want to get.

Try it for a week:ThmbUp:

If you don't have an experimental bankroll, play on paper and see how you do.

Win betting is a nice skill because you use that skill in all the exotics as well.

[so.cal.fan]

4% of starting bankroll...you do not decrease, allow for 25 straight losers.
When you double your starting bankroll you double the bets.
My goal is to bet $400 flat bets to win, this requires a capital of at least $10,000, obviously the more the better. With a $20,000 capital, $400 straight bets is prudent.

[MarquisMark]

I've had good results using the 2% of bankroll method based on perceived edge that has been discussed in some of the other threads and by the other forum members.

High edge situations, do 2.5% of bankroll to win. Normal situations do 2% to win, and lower edge situations, bet 1.5% to win.

Of course, the "edge" is however you define it. If you spot a ridiculous overlay you can put the extra half percent on it. And if you're betting on a longshot based only on breeding or connections or whatever, you can lessen it by that half percent.

I like this because it really lets you stretch the money out and you can sustain a pretty long losing streak without blowing your roll. And a nice hit at medium odds will often be enough to get you back even or close to it.

I am just a hobby player so if you are at this full time or a professional, then 2% might be a bit low for you. This one is very comfortable for me, though.

[so.cal.fan]

Your 2% sounds very sound, MM.
The main idea is to not DECREASE your bet size. I have never liked that, and it never works well for me, same with increasing if you hit a little win streak, mine seem to always follow a loss streak.
I really am a believer in FLAT bets and Flat bets to win. You don't second guess yourself, you don't get caught in switches.....
I have a problem with exotics....reason....the getting caught in switches.
I know too many players who may even be solid winners, but they are also all CRAZY. Highly stressful. I only know of one man who can do this who is fairly sane. He is quirky, but a nice guy, pretty solid citizen. All the rest are certifiable. LOL

[Charlie D]

Socal

Have a look on Horse Street.com

I'm not a user of the HMI, but it looked interesting

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

So. Cal,

I am currently in the process of researching the the most viable method of betting for my temperment.
(1) win only is generally considered the most profitable method for the highest r.o.i. My problem with win only is the losing streak which even when using a higher percentage selection format can really go through some serious droughts in the course of a year.

I am looking at the win/place betting formats involving one unit to win and two units to place (or) 1-3...1-4 .I believe based on the comments by this knowledgable site that these win /place combo's would be less profitable and would require a larger bankroll (however) the psychological benefit of catching decent place prices in a series of ten race losing streaks and actually breaking even or showing a decent profit is not a bad feeling.

[DeanT]

Page 88 and on of this ebook will help you, imo.

http://www.bj21.com/advantageplay/horseracing/bettingcheapclaimers.shtml

[Overlay]

I really am a believer in FLAT bets and Flat bets to win. You don't second guess yourself, you don't get caught in switches.....


If you're emphatic about flat betting, I'd say that the percentage amount of bankroll for each wager should be the overall profit percentage from your past long-term results, divided by the average odds-to-$1 of your winning selections. (Or some consistent fraction of that percentage of bankroll, depending on your comfort level.)

[Dave Schwartz]

If you really like flat betting (just as the previous post begins), then let me suggest another alternative.

First, I believe strongly in "session" play. That is, you may have a large amount of cash but you only play with a segment of that cash at a given time. For this example, suppose that you have $2000 as your "total horse racing bankroll."

1. From the total bankroll comes the session bankroll.
I will suggest that you take 20% of that BR and designate it as a "session." Thus, your first session is $200.

2. The session will be divided into equal units.
I am suggesting 10 units. Thus, in our example, you will be playing $20 units.

3. The goal is to double the bankroll before it goes away.
In other words, you keep flat betting $20 per bet until the $200 becomes $400 or becomes zero. (If the session BR drops to below $20 you may make that one last bet; win it and continue at $20 or lose it and the session is over.)

4. When the session is over the money (if won) is combnined back into the total bankroll.
Thus, if your $200 became $408.20, your total bankroll is now $2,208.20.

5. The ultimate goal is to determine what your "session win percentage is."
Once you determine what your session win percentage is, then you can use Kelly to determine what your optimum bet for the session should be. In this way you will turn your sessions into bets and have great consistency.


Dave

Note: I came home from the movies and realized that I did not hit "submit" when I wrote the note earlier today. Better late than never.)

[citygoat]

I always liked betting $10 to win and then taking 50% of my winning and letting it go on my next pick,Losing days are accounted for and winning days are crazy fun.

[Dr Win]

This may help !!!.............not :2b: @ :bang:

[HUSKER55]

Thanks Dr. Win. When I first started I was told by the members of this board never to bet money into ANY pool that my return would be less than 3:1. That works.

If I like my first pick but the odds are low then I play the $1 exactas,quinellas or doubles to get my odds. Even with that there are a lot of races you have to pass. That is where discipline comes in. As they say in the movies, "know when to fold 'em".

I was watching Andy Sterling on NYRA the other day and he made a valid point that I think a lot of players forget. Your first pick is your first pick. There are players who say my first pick has low odds so my second or third pick now becomes my favorite pick because the odds are better. Then they wonder why they lose.

To me, that means the player is betting against himself. This is just my opinion but I always bet my first pick or move on. I don't think your second pick should be bet to win but rather to place and etc.

Perhaps I am overlooking something? :confused:

Thanks

husker55

:)

[exactaplayer]

So.Cal.fan
Do you have a defined goal for the meet ? what results do you have from prior meets ? Answers to these questions would be of great value in determining your best money management method. My personal betting has gone up from 2 percent of bank to 5 percent of bank. I did this in conjunction with limiting my bets to races where i have had success. And most important for me, I quit when I am ahead !

[ryesteve]

I don't think your second pick should be bet to win but rather to place and etc.

Perhaps I am overlooking something? :confused:
You're overlooking the instances in which your second pick's odds make it an overlay.

Look at it this way: there are successful players who will almost only bet horses going off at odds in the neighborhood or 5-1 to 10-1. Do they really think their horse is the most likely winner? I would hope not, and their results would show that in the races where they were betting a horse going off at those odds, the favorites won more often than they did. Yet they're still able to do well betting horses that aren't the most likely winner of their race.

[HUSKER55]

HI ryesteve, good point and thank you for your advise.

[so.cal.fan]

Exactaplayer:
I haven't kept a detailed record for many years.....I have just started back betting seriously. I don't lose money, but I bet far too conservative, I'm not a born gambler.....I have a fear of gambling and hate casinos and never play lottery tickets or bingo. I've been known to be in Las Vegas in years past with my husband and never put so much as a coin in a slot machine :eek:.
I am a very conservative spot player, don't get a lot of plays.
I never bet below 3/1 odds so I'm interested in studying some of these plans you guys have mapped out.
Thanks to all for your suggestions, they will be considered carefully.
Currently, I am betting at Hollywood Park, where I am losing (surprise) LOL
I won at Oak Tree, have had 7 losers at HP, I selected a 5/1 winner last weekend, but passed it, because it was wearing one ring shoe......it was the turf, the horse looked fantastic otherwise.......turf was softer than usual due to rain, I suppose I should have placed the bet....but as I said, I am conservative.
So......that becomes a problem when one has a "fear of gambling" I guess.
Anyway, I'm going to try to summons my courage and have a better meet at Santa Anita.

[cj]

SoCalFan,

I think this article (http://www.pacefigures.com/articles/expectations.html) might help.

[HUSKER55]

Thanks CJ, I enjoyed the article.


husker55
:)

[MarquisMark]

Hey cj, that article you posted (or wrote?) mentioned something I have a question about. It recommended betting 1% of bankroll on exotics.

When playing with a $500 roll, the 1% is $5. Would this mean to make exotic bets that are $5 total or does that mean that $5 should be the base bet amount?

Using this as a base bet would be pretty cost prohibitive for someone playing on a limited bankroll. Even the smallest exacta wheel would be at least $10-15 bucks. But going with the $5 total would pretty much leave trifectas out of the equation, correct? You'd be limited to $1 exactas, some doubles and $.10 supers.

Is that the best approach for exotic play on a limited bankroll?

[ryesteve]

When playing with a $500 roll, the 1% is $5. Would this mean to make exotic bets that are $5 total or does that mean that $5 should be the base bet amount?The way I read it, that's the total amount on the race. But keep in mind that he calls this a "general" recommendation. I don't think that someone who likes to make straight punches should be betting 1% of their bankroll on them.

[Niko]

so.cal.fan

You sound like a very risk averse person which means that if you're too aggressive it could impact your decision making after a series of expected losses that are well within the norm of probability. Risk averse people experience a lot more "pain" from a losing streak than the elation of a winning one.

If you try to go against your intrinsic personality and bet aggressively (as a percentage of bankroll) it'll affect your betting decisions. So I'd suggest starting with a conservative approach. Your drawdowns (amount your bankroll goes down during a losing streak) will be less with a conservative approach. But what you give up is going on big winning streaks and maximizing bankroll. If you try to maximize bankroll your drawdowns will be bigger. A 50% drop in bankroll for the risk aversive can be very, very trying on the psyche. But I may have read your conservative nature wrong.

I'm a big fan of Kelly for determining bankroll size. Kelly is famous for traders, most gamblers, blackjack etc. I'll make it real easy in a second but the easiest formula for me is;

bet size = ((win % times W/PL) minus (1 minus win percent)) divided by two.

W/PL is the average amount you win on each win bet compared to the average loss on each bet.
Win % is your win percent.

So here's how it would look for historical results of a 31% winning percentage and an average pay-out of 6.80

$6.80/$2=3.40 $2 is your loss and $6.80 average win price
win percentage is 31%

Kelly
((.31*3.4) - (1-.31))/2
(1.054 -.69)/2
.182 = 18%
Full Kelly = 18%
1/4 Kelly = 4.50%
1/6 Kelly = 3%
1/10 Kelly = 1.8%

Now simple advice. If you bet full Kelly you have a great chance of getting wiped out. If you bet 1/4 Kelly you will surely see a 50% drawdown at some point (I don't have the stats with me at this time). At 1/6 Kelly you will still experience one if you play long enough and 1/10 it's very, very unlikely.

So if you have an idea of your hit rate and your temperament you can decide where to start. If you don't like drawdowns I'd suggest starting at 1/10 of Kelly using flat bets and not a percentage of bankroll. Once you double your bankroll take some money, put it in your pocket and start over again.

I'll attach a spreadsheet that my help so you can see some different results using the various levels and doing it with a flat bankroll as opposed to a percentage.

A couple of adjustments.

Because you are using average odds you'll have to adjust your bets some.
If your average win odds are 2-1 but you're betting on a 8-1 the losing streaks are longer so you should be slightly less.

If you're horse is going off at odds that present a huge overlay you should bet a little more as already mentioned.

This is imperfect because each odds level requires a different optimal Kelly but it's the best approach I've found. Sorry about the long post but I hope it helps.

[Niko]

Ok, I'm an idiot. I'm missing something simple, I see how to insert an image, hyperlink and photo but not an attachment??

Also; there was a link to a spreadsheet in a recent link that showed the maximum number of losses for any win percent and now I can't find it. Any help.

Anything out there that predicts maximum wins, losses, drawdowns etc..

[so.cal.fan]

Niko,
You pegged me correctly.
I am very familiar with Kelly.....It made a ton of sense when I first read it, but then I started thinking about it for a few years and decided that with horse betting, one can never be accurate on their win %.
I recently had an Oak Tree meet where I hit nearly 40% winners.
The previous Oak Tree meet, I barely hit 20%.
I've had winning Del Mar meets and losing ones.....we stopped using steroids before the Breeder's Cup, and it's been telling.
There are a lot of reasons why one can never be sure of your win %.
If I bet 4/1 or better or even 3/1 or better, I can predict my payoffs.
They stay pretty solid over the years.
I only make about 4 bets a week. Bet only on track.
You can see, I don't have a problem making a small profit....but that's all I've been able to do. I can make $100 bets, over that.....I'm going to need some serious work.
Thanks for your comments, they are correct.

[Niko]

If you're only making 4 bets a week, the fluctuations in win percent for different meets are within reason and to be expected. But if you average it out and try to bet optimally you'll still be further ahead than playing the 1% or 2% that everyone throws out automatically. Even if it's your best approximation and you err on the side of being conservative it'll help. After a coulple years of betting you might be surprised at the difference it makes.

One thing that I try to do that flies in the face of conventional wisdom is increasing my bets a small amount after a longer than normal losing streak, I know my results will bet back to my averages. If it doesn't or course I'm screwed so that's why I increase it a small amount. So if you just had a bad meet at Santa Anita and start winning at Hollywood you could push it a bit knowing you're in sync with what's going on again. Same reason I cut back after a big win streak...protect my profits. Just like trainers going through cycles at different meets.

The worst thing you can do is increase your bet size just for the sake of trying to make money without a corresponding increase in bankroll, it will bust you eventually unless you're lucky and start at just the right time. If you only make so much on your edge at $100, than that's what you're able to make.

may not help you much but it's fun to talk about....and I'm not a professional so take what I say in context to all the other information everyone so graciously shares on this board.

[badcompany]

2% of your roll on an individual race is fine. Sticking to the system is the hard part.

[so.cal.fan]

Well, badcompany, I agree.
The thing we need to remember, however is sticking to your guns at the racetrack is like sticking on your diet. If you go off it......you fail to acheive your desired results.
Quickest way to get caught in the evil SWITCHES trap is to go off your plan, only to see it work within the next two or three bets......and you're tangled brain is saying....."I shoulda"
Hey, any of us who has been betting horses for even a few years knows exactly what I'm talking about.