What's your style

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Listened to a real spirited discussion with five 'hard core' regular horseplayers in the OTB. I have reason to believe that at least three of the five players were very knowledgable gamblers who did the necessary work and to my knowledge (and especially from my friend who knows them well), were structured and very disciplined in their every day play.

One side insisted that for professionals (serious about long-term profits), must be very selective waiting for 'prime' infrequent wagering opportunities and then striking hard with a well calculated large wager according their bankrolls.

The other side insisted on wagering on a large amount of edge situations to avoid relying on the consequences of the result of one particular isolated race.
Very interesting conversation with valid points on either side.

IMO, if you have an overall edge you should play into this edge as many times as possible...the question is do you really know that what you have is a valid edge?

I am inclined to lean to the astute gambler who know's his or her strengths and weaknesses, and can back it up with statistics. The only reason to go to the window is when your statistics and research reveal the best percentage play possible...then you can wager full strength knowing for certain the bet was a good one. As a matter of fact the bet was so good you would be willing to wager ten times your regular wager (in theory), because the set up was such an advantge. Yes, these situations do lose, nothing is certain, however, over a period of time the advantage will show with profit.

[Overlay]

IMO, if you have an overall edge you should play into this edge as many times as possible...the question is do you really know that what you have is a valid edge?

I am inclined to lean to the astute gambler who know's his or her strengths and weaknesses, and can back it up with statistics.

I would imagine that there are some people (to whom my hat is off) who can play for value consistently on an intuitive basis. However, from my perspective, I agree with you completely about the use of statistics in providing confidence with respect to locating favorable wagering situations where an edge in the odds exists; and about the preferability of exploiting a known/documented edge as often as possible, rather than being more selective.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Overlay,

My only purpose to get involved with a race is to attempt to exploit a vulnerable or over bet race favorite. Yes, occasionally I side with the race favorite when I deem it as a value situation....but my trips to the betting window are some what infrequent for the most part.

[markgoldie]

Seems that the debate as you framed it is not over whether or not one should only wager where there is a positive expectation. This goes without saying. But the particular question is whether you should wait for a larger edge and then bet a higher percentage of your bankroll, OR if you should bet more frequently into lesser-advantaged spots.

In this day and age, the answer revolves more around the size of your rebate than anything else. With a good rebate schedule, it pays to bet all the advantaged spots and be less selective, because if you don't, you're just leaving money on the table. In fact, with a very good rebate schedule, it pays to churn the cash even when your overall action is marginally negative. This, of course, doesn't mean that you bet every race in the same amount. You should still escalate when you're relatively sure the edge is positive.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Seems that the debate as you framed it is not over whether or not one should only wager where there is a positive expectation. This goes without saying. But the particular question is whether you should wait for a larger edge and then bet a higher percentage of your bankroll, OR if you should bet more frequently into lesser-advantaged spots.

In this day and age, the answer revolves more around the size of your rebate than anything else. With a good rebate schedule, it pays to bet all the advantaged spots and be less selective, because if you don't, you're just leaving money on the table. In fact, with a very good rebate schedule, it pays to churn the cash even when your overall action is marginally negative. This, of course, doesn't mean that you bet every race in the same amount. You should still escalate when you're relatively sure the edge is positive.

Very good point Mark. With the rebates available today it pays to play with a more frequent pattern then those 'by gone' days when a horseplayer had much fewer options pertaining to wagers.

[ranchwest]

A lot probably has to do with a person's max bet limit and how often one is willing to go up to that limit.

[windoor]

I’m in the camp of you can’t beat a race, but if your consistent in your method, you can beat the races.

I have played races were I felt very good about my selection and the horse did not hit the board. I played a race earlier this month with three contenders and the worst of the three (on paper) wins at 75.40. Go figure.

Given my “style” of play, I look at every one hundred consecutive playable races and expect to win a minimum of 30 of them. If I am honest with myself, I really do not know when I am going to hit so I flat bet all of them and hope my percentages and expected average odd hold up.

Regards,

Windoor

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think most of the time you are at the mercy of the toteboard for big payoffs.They just don't materialize that often.I try not to force it and let it come when it does.

Once handicapping is done I gear my play towards the strength of my betting approach.I bet to win and play exactas dominantly.

Win betting-I refuse to bet anything under 2-1.Because of that my average mutuel is 7/2 with a 33% hit rate or thereabouts since 2001.The ROI over 55% playing in this manner and the burden of a high hit rate isn't nagging at me with this approach.

Exactas-because they are essentially a win-place wager the cash rate should be high if you cover the main contenders.And the payoffs can be big even when your 3rd or 4th combination(with your key horse to place) come in.Without going into great detail,here are the composite ROI's per hit% bracket;

21%=40% ROI
25%=63% ROI
29%=87% ROI

I rarely do much better than that.

With both I have a built in edge by the way I bet.I strive not to be the world's greatest handicapper but to be efficient with my money on the insights I do have.

When it comes to knowing when to pull the trigger.As Overlay would agree,when one's own personal oddsline completely contradicts the toteboard,a major offing is at hand if you are right.For me though when I'm getting sufficent value on a key horse and I want to bet both to win and the exacta,I know it is a sign that I should bet more than usual.

I completely believe in the passing attack though.For me it sharpens my sense of value.There are so many apples and oranges or marginal-value races that I just pass.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Well Belmont.I guess style is limited.

I am into hearing how others approach betting as well.We talk about handicapping points and the issues in the game but there is very little about betting approaches,thoughts,formulas,math.Except for the maybe occasional "How can I plug in this formula and bet and be mindless".I'd like to hear everybody's "Betting Manifesto" laid out in certain terms.