Betting Stategy?

[thaskalos]

If you wagered on only your top choice in every race, then you would have chalked up a 25.6% ROI over the 2-day span. Your average winning mutuel was only $5.02...but you had the winner in 8 of the 16 races that you played. If this brief sample exemplifies what your NORMAL results look like...then you don't need any advice from us; WE need advice from YOU!

When you earn a 25% ROI while betting on every race...then you are odds-on to become one of the wealthiest bettors in the game...and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If these results are typical for you, then bet on your top choice in every race...and your biggest problem will be figuring out what to do with all that money.

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you wagered on only your top choice in every race, then you would have chalked up a 25.6% ROI over the 2-day span. Your average winning mutuel was only $5.02...but you had the winner in 8 of the 16 races that you played. If this brief sample exemplifies what your NORMAL results look like...then you don't need any advice from us; WE need advice from YOU!

When you earn a 25% ROI while betting on every race...then you are odds-on to become one of the wealthiest bettors in the game...and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If these results are typical for you, then bet on your top choice in every race...and your biggest problem will be figuring out what to do with all that money.

Thank you ...for not spinning my head with a response

even though these guys were awesome with their suggestions
I was getting ready to go Back to School with Rodney ..

Watch, now the 2nd and 3rd choices will start winning

mike

[green80]

Just keep records for a couple of hundred races and see where you are at. If you can show a profit betting your top horse it makes no difference if your 2nd or 3rd pick win sometime. If you are like me sometimes the 2nd or 3rd pick show a greater ROI than the top pick over time. Everybody need to find what works for them over time.

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by green80

Just keep records for a couple of hundred races and see where you are at. If you can show a profit betting your top horse it makes no difference if your 2nd or 3rd pick win sometime. If you are like me sometimes the 2nd or 3rd pick show a greater ROI than the top pick over time. Everybody need to find what works for them over time.

[pandy]

You can't rely on two days to form an approach. Normally, if you have a reliable approach, method, whatever you want to call, at picking 3 contenders, you should be betting any one of the three that's an overlay, or skipping the race.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by green80

Just keep records for a couple of hundred races and see where you are at. If you can show a profit betting your top horse it makes no difference if your 2nd or 3rd pick win sometime. If you are like me sometimes the 2nd or 3rd pick show a greater ROI than the top pick over time. Everybody need to find what works for them over time.

Right, a lot of people don't realize that they're actually handicapping a lot better than they think, but the profit is in their underneath picks, not the top pick.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pandy

You can't rely on two days to form an approach. Normally, if you have a reliable approach, method, whatever you want to call, at picking 3 contenders, you should be betting any one of the three that's an overlay, or skipping the race.

Picking three contenders is easy. Assigning odds requirements to those three contenders to identify whether they are "overlays" or not, is very difficult.

[raybo]

As has been stated here by several, record keeping is a must! By tracking what tracks you play, and what races at those tracks you play, tells you what you need to do in order to profit, if it's even possible. Some tracks, and some races at those tracks, just can't be played profitably over time. Analyze your records and concentrate your play at tracks, and in races, that produce profit.

I keep records by track, and at each track I keep records of win, place, show, exacta, and trifecta performances by my top 3 ranked horses. I filter my records by day of the week, distance, surface, surface conditions, and class. Each time I filter I scan the summary reports for my top 3 ranked horses, looking at hit rate, ROI, profit, and "consistency" (winning streaks versus losing streaks in both frequency and length). I also have a minimum odds report, that shows all the important data, to see if lower odds horses can successfully be tossed, over time. I choose to play either one horse, 2 horses, or 3 horses, based on their individual summary results, after checking for outliers and adjusting as needed.

In other words, playing is only part of the process, record keeping analysis is the other part. Without the record keeping activity there can be no play activity, IMO.

At Saratoga, we know the average win price is very good, that's a fact. So, you can afford to cut a little slack for your outliers there, because you will get more of them there than at most other tracks. At other tracks with lower average payouts, the outliers are far fewer so you have to adjust for that, either by discounting them or by reverting to the mean/median. Don't let a couple of longshots skew your perception above where they really should be.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Picking three contenders is easy. Assigning odds requirements to those three contenders to identify whether they are "overlays" or not, is very difficult.

No truer words were ever spoken! I've never been able to assign odds for any period of time, successfully, and I doubt any significant number of players can either, at least not to the extent that long term profit comes from it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

No truer words were ever spoken! I've never been able to assign odds for any period of time, successfully, and I doubt any significant number of players can either, at least not to the extent that long term profit comes from it.

Me neither.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

No truer words were ever spoken! I've never been able to assign odds for any period of time, successfully, and I doubt any significant number of players can either, at least not to the extent that long term profit comes from it.

I think this is a case where a computer can do it much more reliably, and certainly faster, than a human...if the human can accurately program his logic.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

I think this is a case where a computer can do it much more reliably, and certainly faster, than a human...if the human can accurately program his logic.

I agree, but the bolded part is the key, and that ain't no small thing!

[Tom]

Does the program give you rankings or anything to differentiate between the three selections? You could try the 4 Quarters book by Fioro(?)

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Picking three contenders is easy. Assigning odds requirements to those three contenders to identify whether they are "overlays" or not, is very difficult.

Removing qualitative factors and subjective judgment from the process can assist in that regard (whether restricting consideration to perceived contenders, or looking at the full field).

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Overlay

Removing qualitative factors and subjective judgment from the process can assist in that regard (whether restricting consideration to perceived contenders, or looking at the full field).

True...but that doesn't mean that employing "objective" factors in line-making will necessarily lead to profits.

Many have spoken of the usefulness of a profitable betting line...but no one has proven to us that one such betting line actually exists.