The key part of that equation is the highest probability of winning. Betting large amounts on longshots will lead to bankroll ruin unless, of course, the longshots have an extremely high probability of winning. Not exactly an everyday or even every month type of bet.

WOW! I didn’t realize a comment like this would create any controversy at all.
It seems that some seem to get it right off the bat. Yet others right away start blowing it out of proportion by comparing extremely long odds (long shots) with short odds.
Maybe I should have spelled out the "high and low" with more clarity?

I’ve been playing this game a long time and I’ve never looked at the odds of my final selections from the perspective of considering the % of their chances of winning. Maybe that’s because rather than trying to pick winners I choose to make winning plays by hedging my bets. I’ve always preferred to either make multi-entry Dutch Win plays or make Vertical bets with multiple permutations. The odds value of the preferred entries simply provide me with a barometer to first determine if it’s a play or pass. If it’s a play then it’s just a question of “how much”.

Again it comes down the odds value. I would rather focus on a profit margin than a probability. For instance, because I have a known hit frequency when it comes to Dutch plays (regardless of the anticipated profit margin), I will always invest more when that margin is higher.
I agree, but I have personally never found much value in creating an odds line. Because no matter which factors and variables from the realities of the past are used, they can only provide a subjective conclusion for a theoretical outcome.

So, what's the color of money? Green80’s got the right idea, because it all comes down to one thing:
Taking Advantage when the opportunity presents itself.
.

So basically you just said that you have a good idea of your probability of hitting a dutch bet which I assume doesn't change much. So it certainly makes sense to bet more when your margins are higher. There is a big difference, however, when analyzing how much to bet to win on a single horse.

And this is the real truth of who, when, and how much to bet, instead of this thread's premise..."Reducing # of bets to improve ROI".

Variance is the killer to most bankrolls, and how you iron that out is finding as many situations as Nitro does, which requires "Increasing # of bets to improve ROI"....

The point of the thread might still hold true even if you are dutching.

if your play is to bet 3 or 4 horses against the fave, and you are not doing well, you are probably looking for a weak fave to bet against.

if you reduce the # of dutch attempts and try to find faves who are the very weakest going off at very low odds you still may increase your R.O.I. compared to trying to get as many dutch attempts as you can in

but I wouldn't suggest that anybody who is profitable change what they are doing

and it may make sense to consider a dutch attempt as being one bet

I've tried dutching and I didn't do well. when I won, the net profit was very low and sometimes because of odds changing too late for me to consider, much lower than I expected

but I'm not knocking in

It's still a dilemma for me after 40 years.

Some of the biggest "theoretcial" overlays I find are on horses I'm not giving a especially big chance of winning. That makes the potential losing streaks problematical (the psychological impact is even tougher for me). At the same time, I try to keep my bets as flat as possible for other reasons.

I don't make action bets.

If a horse doesn't qualify for my normal bet amount, I don't make it.

Why lose on a low percentage action bet? They hurt my bottom line.

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp: 100% correct.


I catch myself making ACTION BETS in a couple scenarios

1. I'm live, at the track, and just trying to make a 'day at the races' (rather than being focused on the simulcast opportunities)
2. Or, There are some times when I tune into a card, and I throw $2 on a horse , 'seed money', to get warmed up :coffee:

Probably knocks $100.00 off my yearly bottom line. Not correct theory, but that's how I live.

If one is betting just for the sake of betting then no, that probably isn't a good habit to start. But there are so many scenarios that warrant a bet albeit not a large regular bet. I think it makes perfect sense to make action bets. Example: Heavy favorite comes on the track completely washed out and you know that the horse runs poorly when washed out. I think it is good play to make a bet of some sort against the favorite.

A newcomer at the track would lose their mind if they sat around for 4+ hours and made 1 or 2 bets all day.

The "action bet" concept was first introduced during the pre-simulcast days...when there were indeed hours in-between the serious player's solid wagers. In the current hyper-betting era, the races come in rapid succession...and the action bets have outlived their original usefulness...IMO. I, personally, cannot imagine a newcomer at the track being so selective as to make only a bet or two in 4+ hours. Today's newcomers don't lose their minds...they are satisfied in only losing their money.

I recall reading one of Beyer's books outlining the difference between "prime" and "action" bets, and as I tried to adjust my wagering from harness to thoroughbreds back in the mid 1980s, I thought it was a good strategy, since the performance of thoroughbreds was (and still is) so much more volatile. From "pounding" several races a card to maybe several a week was defensive to protect the bankroll.

Then simulcasting came along, and that proved for me to be an even bigger challenge to adjust to - hyper-betting indeed. I would agree the action bets of today are not the same as yesteryear, and are more along the lines of what I would call a "base" wager.

And I would add the "prime" bet has morphed into an increase in the wager based on odds, and not on the myth (for me anyway) of probability. After all, the horse that's 25-1 doesn't have a 10% chance to win, so deserves a larger bet. The horse in 1:11 2/5 will have a 100% chance or a 0% chance to win, period. So if the odds are longer, I try to take advantage of it.

30 years ago I would bet 8 of 10 races, and bet prime levels in 1 or 2. Today I might look over 50-80 races on Saturdays, bet on 15, with 12 at my base level, 2 at 1.5 to 2.0 x base level, and one at 2.5 or 3 x base level.

About four times a year I get the old "prime" bet feeling, and pound a horse. That's one of the big differences between playing online and at the track.

Variance is the killer? Not sure I follow what you mean - are you saying that players need to be better handicappers and come up with better odds lines, or they need to more rigorously adhere to stricter betting amounts and bankroll management?

Increasing the number of bets implies that a player is capable of finding, in spades over longer periods of time, races where you have "an edge". I would suggest for most players that's beyond their reach. I would advise to carefully review your records, be open to adjustments and streaks, but narrow your focus to where you can expect some success - which translates for me anyway, betting fewer races.

So if probability is a myth all of your bets on 25-1 horses should be winning at the same rate as your bets on 3-1 horses.

All of my bets are action bets.
I handicap and go to the track for entertainment.

Yesterday I bet the early pick5 at Gulfstream, 142 $1.00 exactas (2 exactas per race in 71 races)
and 29 $1.00 cold DDs.

Since I began betting this way about two months ago, I am way ahead.
I know that this winning streak will end some day, but that's horse racing.

Since I depend on Jockey and Trainer stats, Saturdays are not good for me.
Jockeys and Trainers shipping in and out thoroughly mess up my handicapping.
If I go to the track on a Saturday, I will bet only on the races that don't have outsiders.
So obviously I avoid graded races.

Making money gambling on horses is fun.
Losing a little money is a learning experience.
Handicapping keeps you sharp.
As long as you bet only what you can afford to lose, it's all good.