For me, it's a two part strategy, with reducing the number of bets as step 1.

1. To bet or not to bet - it's hard to quantify, but the race has to have a certain level of predictability. If horses at decent odds have a good shot, or the heavy chalk is vulnerable - it's a play. If the 2 or 3 chalks look like they'll hit the board, or the race is very evenly matched (rare event these days), it's a pass. I wager on about 1 out 4 races I handicap.

2. Value - if the race is worth a play, I have a very, very difficult time predicting "true odds". Horses I like a little romp by 10, horses I love bring up the rear. So, I tend to bet pretty much the same amount on each race I do play, though I will increase the bet for longer odds - as Nitro pointed out. Sort of a poor man's Kelly approach. If the horse is 5-1, I bet $10. If the horse is 25-1, I bet $25. Generally a 1x to 4x range of amount invested, with the 1x level comprising 80% of bets.

Handicapping is now the easy part. Efficient wagering is the challenge.

I am curious to know why some are advocating betting more on their high odds horses and less on their low odds horses. Take a 25-1 horse that you have precisely evaluated to have a 10% chance of winning. A great overlay for sure but still with a 90% chance of losing. It's not hard to rack up many consecutive losses at that percentage regardless of the amount of the overlay.

Good luck determining that with any accuracy.

If you handicap a race and you find a horse at 25-1 that you'd play at 5-1, you better pound it. Winning years are usually made up of a handful of big wins.

I don't understand this theory of betting more on the longshots either. Perhaps I would understand it better if someone could explain to me what it means when we are told to "pound" our selection when it goes off at high odds. Let's say that my bankroll dictates that I bet $50 to win on a solid play...and I am willing to bet this amount when I unearth a 3-1 choice. What am I supposed to bet when someone tells me to "pound" a subsequent 12-1 selection of mine? Does "pounding" this longshot mean that I should DOUBLE my usual bet? Should I TRIPLE it? Wouldn't this mean that I would be severely overbetting my bankroll in these instances?

I submit that, when people say that they make their seasonal profit from a "handful of big wins"...they are referring strictly to exotics wagering. The win-betting game is a grind...and it demands a more conservative betting plan, IMO. When you make it a habit to "pound" the longshots while betting much less on the shorter-priced selections...then you'd better be able to replenish your bankroll when it gets depleted. Otherwise...it doesn't take a meteorologist to predict the treacherous weather that surely lurks ahead.

I can't look at a 25/1 shot and say that his true odds are 5/1.

the only way I can look at it is to think he's a 25/1 longshot and he has a fair chance of winning so he's a real good bet

there's no way I can put a number to it

I was trying to make a point not debate the ability or inability to precisely determine a probability.

How often do you get 25-1 horses that you would bet at 5-1? If this happens a lot for you then you are an extraordinary handicapper.

Outside of an incredibly unusual situation there has not been a case for betting more on longshots and less on lower priced horses.

I flat bet my win bets regardless of odds (if minim of 5-2--$7.00+ is fine with me.) When I bet 2 horses total odd should be at least 8-1. A 5-1 and 3-1 is acceptable as an example.

If I am doing OK with $20 win bets, I keep it at that level.

If I am doing well for an extended period I increase gradually to $25 then 30.

If I hit a slump I drop to $15.

I've sat by others who have a good day then double or triple their base bet, and go broke when the slump comes.

https://i.imgur.com/HMgX6dU.png

When you do see those rare long shots, where you have competence and understanding, and the horse is a true contender at a big price, you do have to have the chutzpah to 'key' the horse.






#7 SPRING VALUE 15/1 (aptly named)
2019-02-15
18:29:02
Bet
Delta Downs
7
Exacta
$5.00
1 + 4 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 / 7
$25.00
$680.50

2019-02-15
18:29:29
Bet
Delta Downs
7
Exacta
$1.00
7 / 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9
$8.00 LOSE

2019-02-15
18:24:32
Bet
Delta Downs
7
Win
$8.00
7
$8.00 LOSE

2019-02-15
18:20:12
Bet
Delta Downs
7
Superfecta
$0.10
1 + 4 + 6 + 8 / 8 / 1 + 2 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 / 6 + 7
$2.50 LOSE



2019-02-15
18:24:11
Bet
Delta Downs
7
Trifecta
$0.50
1 + 4 + 6 / 7 / 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9
$10.50
$751.60

For me that's basically a "pound".

it's relatively expensive to key a horse, rather than just including him with various (and likely low priced) contenders, equally on a caveman or group-of-contenders style bet. That's not decisive enough to really capitalize.

So for me.. that's a "pound".

Some guys bet HEAVY relative to their bankroll. Some of them win big. A lot strikeout.

https://i.imgur.com/X521IsR.jpg

the words: investor, speculator, gambler - they're just words - they don't mean much


quite a few speculators make money - they don't care if you tell them they're not investors

not a high % of gamblers make money but there are still quite a few that do
they don't care if you call them gamblers and tell them they're not investors
although in this world of PC most prefer to be called APs.

some who call themselves investors are looking for the highest CD rates
they're going to barely beat inflation or in many years lose out to it
nobody can say that they're not investors - and how they operate is not in any way impressive

the only thing that matters is if you can be significantly profitable

it doesn't matter what word you choose to call yourself

That's a great post. If there is a glaring weakness in the chart that I posted, it would be the condescending tone of the contrast of the header labels themselves.


Attempted focus was toward the 'attitudes'/ 'processes' /'strategies', and with their contrasting examples.

The late, great, David "Chip" Reese, who was perhaps the best and most respected cash-game poker player in the word, unabashedly called himself a "gambler" until the day he died. Knowing this...I am thoroughly embarrassed to call myself anything more "respectable" than that.

Great scene. :ThmbUp:

I have 2 types of bets.

1. Large serious bets where I feel comfortable I know something about a horse or race that is not being reflected on the board and I am feeling confident in my own methods and thinking at that time.

2. Small action bets usually between $2-$5 where I am passing time or testing something new with live money.

I don't see the point of making plays with more than token amounts unless you are confident you have an edge. We all make mistakes and sometimes don't have have accurate or complete information at our disposal. You want to give yourself some margin of safety before betting more serious money.

I think the "bet more on your longshots" strategy has its roots in people looking at their historical results.

Theoretically, you should make an odds line and bet more on the biggest overlays with the highest probability of winning. But for most, theory and reality have little to do with each other.

Most people start off betting more on the horses they think have the greatest chance of winning (usually shorter prices) but eventually find out they are losing money on those 2-1 shots and lower they liked but perhaps doing fine at 3-1 and above. Real vs perceived overlays in the low price range seem to be tougher to find. So they slowly shift their game towards medium priced horses and live longshots.

If you have any advantage over the game, the more bets you make the bigger your bankroll will grow.