Bottom Fishers or Big baloons

[misscashalot]

Do bottom fishers have a better chance of making long term profits
more than those going for higher payoffs?

[Overlay]

Although low-priced horses are more prevalent because of smaller fields and the public's general accuracy, it's a challenge to maintain the consistency and betting discipline needed to achieve long-term profits by confining consideration only to those odds ranges.

There has to be a means of occasionally detecting higher-priced horses that are genuine overlays (even though they may not hit as often) -- either through spot plays (at least, until other people catch on to them and they become overbet and unprofitable), or through consideration of the winning chances of every horse in the field in comparison to its odds (which addresses that obsolescence concern).

Also, lower-odds horses that are overbet in the win pool may still offer value as part of exotic combinations (although the hit rate will be lower than with win betting, of course).

[Handiman]

What you guys say is true for the most part. But the Pari mutual system has one flaw, and that is the minimum payout. Negative pools still offer profit. When in fact the numbers if held strictly in relation to each other, would not pay out 2.20 or 2.10 but less.

Handi:)

[Overlay]

What you guys say is true for the most part. But the Pari mutual system has one flaw, and that is the minimum payout. Negative pools still offer profit. When in fact the numbers if held strictly in relation to each other, would not pay out 2.20 or 2.10 but less.

Handi:)

That's true. But, even if a horse might still technically be an overlay at minimum payout odds, just one failure to cash will wipe out the profits from many wins.

[misscashalot]

That's true. But, even if a horse might still technically be an overlay at minimum payout odds, just one failure to cash will wipe out the profits from many wins.

...which brings us to non-winning streaks; which I brought up in the recent whale thread. In order to be a successful bettor, under any circumstance, you must know and believe in your strike rate and accept these depressing streaks. My experience is that 50% win rate may produce 8 consecutive losses, which is countered either before or after by as much a 6 consecutive wins. However the lower your average win $ is, the more easily profits can be wiped out by a bad streak. It's a fine balance; the soup contains pain threshold, money in the bank, and expectations. What I miss here?

[Handiman]

I understand everything you guys are saying. The key is consistency. The program was written so as not to produce consecutive losses. As best as possible, racing luck still a formidable opponent though.

As of now the program has produced only a 2 loss streak once. So far out of 224 races 214 have hit. Will this rate continue, I certainly hope so, but time will tell.

Handi:)

[Overlay]

...which brings us to non-winning streaks; which I brought up in the recent whale thread. In order to be a successful bettor, under any circumstance, you must know and believe in your strike rate and accept these depressing streaks.
On pages 290 and 291 of Winning at the Races, Quirin included a table of maximum percentage of bankroll that could be bet (under both flat and variable percentage-based wagering) in order to provide at least a 90% assurance of coming out ahead after 1,000 wagers. Optimum bet size was calculated based on a correlation of the winning percentage and the percentage of profit associated with the handicapping method that you're using. The trick, of course, is assuring that neither of those percentages decreases over the span of bets.

[Robert Fischer]

Do bottom fishers have a better chance of making long term profits
more than those going for higher payoffs?

not sure about the terms here but I'll give it a shot

assuming the player has the skill to earn a long term profit, the variety of pools that he plays in are determined by his bankroll size, and the market value.

Bankroll size determines both the amount he can wager, and the minimum hit% that he can withstand.

The player wagers the most money he can possibly wager in the pool(s) of the greatest Value, but he does this decision with the rule that he may not risk ruin of his bankroll.

Each pool is an option to explore. There are also situations which call for simultaneously using multiple pools offered for the same race. The greater the bankroll size is the more options the player has. The player also has to be skilled in each different pool if he is to use it.

There are many factors which may provide an incentive for a player to specialize in certain pools, and clearly with those incentives that particular player should focus on that particular style.

Finally - If a player does not have the skill to make a long term profit, he can choose what entertains him, and also consider that in his case making small wagers on possible jackpot returns may actually give him a better chance to make a long term profit. Sure it's a technicality and not a wise thing to do if he values his money, but if he were to luck into a lotto style play he would technically be ahead long term.

[misscashalot]

not sure about the terms here but I'll give it a shot
...

Well put. Thanks Matt

[CBedo]

In order to be a successful bettor, under any circumstance, you must know and believe in your strike rate and accept these depressing streaks.I think more than knowing and believing your strike rate, it's understanding and trusting your selection methodology (which of course translates into a strike rate). If you have done the work to trust your handicapping, then it's much easier understand and deal with the losing streaks without losing confidence over time.

[Jackal]

I tend to play tracks with large fields. I guess I am a lotto player. But when I hit a 5k superfecta with a $60 total bet I know I am ahead for a long time. I don't bet that many races per card. I go to New Orleans at least twice during the Fairgrounds meet. Each trip I usually bet 3 or 4 races. I know my strike rate is fairly low. I don't see a reason to bet unless I am getting very good odds.

[CincyHorseplayer]

All the odds brackets have different winning percentages so whatever mix you have of them....

This is nothing new.The 2-1,5/2,3-1 range will be 40-50% for me.The 7/2 to 6-1 rang about 20-25%.The 7-1 and up range 10-12%.

I don't think any of us has an ideal payout range other than better than what we think it should be.I don't bet horses to win at less than 2-1 and am willing to take the hit at strike rate.Some are willing to have a the big average mutuel at a 20% hit rate.It's a matter of feel and I guess bankroll.If you can sustain losing streaks via a big bankroll you can be inclined to play whatever.If you need wins on a more regular basis playing obvious winners at shorter mutuels is a great philosophy.

But regardless,unless we want to eliminate the hit rate we're taking horses at all kinds of mutuels.It's not an either/or proposition is it??