Dutching Win Bets

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

the idea that dutching is sub optimal because you guarantee one or more losses is false

if you bet randomly on a roulette wheel you would have the same results in the long run whether you bet one number or 17 numbers - as long as your bet on one number equals the amount bet on 17 numbers

yes, I know that horse racing is not a roulette wheel and that cappers are not betting randomly

that's doesn't change the fact that it's a wash

bet one horse and you will lose more often

bet more than one and you will win more often but with less profit on that race

if you feel that you have a better bet (edge) on one horse than on the other(s) then yes, it is sub optimal -

Thanks to those who contributed to this thread, which was very (very!) civil compared to a similar one on Twitter which precipitated the OP.

Had I any doubts about the strategy based on what many of you wrote, I would have reconsidered my dutching recommendation on the various blogs I write.

The last two weeks, well after the comments on Twitter which resulted in opening this dialog, the strategy has continued to do well. This past weekend on the Amwager blog for the Endeavour Stakes I recommended Lucrezia at 2/1 and Two Sixty at 5/2, with Lucrezia paying $13.80 to win. I did not recommend dutching in the Sam F. Davis as I felt Sole Volante was a strong overlay at anything above 2/1. My dutch win bet recommendation in the Tampa Bay Stakes was on March to the Arch and Caribou Club, with the former came up a nose and head shy of winning (and the other off the board). The previous week the dutching recommendation of Cheermeister and Summer Promise (at 7/2) in the Sweetest Chant worked well with the former winning at 7 to 1 then, similar to the Sam F. Davis, in the Swale I felt Mischevious Alex was an overlay at 9 to 5 or more. I felt the same about South Bend in the Dania Beach but he came up a head or two short.


As you can see, my current philosophy is in agreement with those in this thread who wrote when there is a strong opinion on a horse to bet that horse only, but there are many advantages to dutching as well.


Thanks again to everyone!!

[davew]

Are there people that frequently bet cold exactas, cold trifectas, or cold superfectas?


I can only imagine how long a losing streak you would have between cashes betting a cold superfecta.

If you bet a superfecta like AB/ABC/ABCD/ABCD you have at least 7 guaranteed losers (unless deadhead involved)

How is this any different than betting 2,3,4 or 5 horses to win?

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by davew

Are there people that frequently bet cold exactas, cold trifectas, or cold superfectas?


I can only imagine how long a losing streak you would have between cashes betting a cold superfecta.

If you bet a superfecta like AB/ABC/ABCD/ABCD you have at least 7 guaranteed losers (unless deadhead involved)

How is this any different than betting 2,3,4 or 5 horses to win?

There are vast differences in potential profits (and obviously risk level). I believe in a bet a little to win a lot. Betting that superfecta, depending on the odds you have potential for a big score. Betting four horses to win, not so much.

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Those players who never box, dutch or hedge when making their bets may indeed be "maximizing their ROI"...but I don't envy them. Whatever money they save by "betting optimally"...they spend it on their psychiatrists.

Hi Thask,

Since the only gamblers who can bet optimally are those (similar to blackjack players) with an accurate estimate of the probabilities, this really isn't an issue for the vast majority of traditional handicappers. When you talk about the stress of gambling, this is something that should only be an issue for professionals (I hope), but regardless, is a product of variance, not of bet size or bet type. Stilll, when they need to, pros betting optimally can always reduce their Kelly fraction when variance starts to get to them -- they're still betting optimally. For many that I know, this kind of reduction is a major goal.

As far as dutching goes, there's nothing wrong with it, but has the same drawback as bets in all traditional gambling -- you never know the value of an individual bet, only the aggregate value of your long term betting, assuming you keep good records.

Best,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

Thanks to those who contributed to this thread, which was very (very!) civil compared to a similar one on Twitter which precipitated the OP.

Had I any doubts about the strategy based on what many of you wrote, I would have reconsidered my dutching recommendation on the various blogs I write.

The last two weeks, well after the comments on Twitter which resulted in opening this dialog, the strategy has continued to do well. This past weekend on the Amwager blog for the Endeavour Stakes I recommended Lucrezia at 2/1 and Two Sixty at 5/2, with Lucrezia paying $13.80 to win. I did not recommend dutching in the Sam F. Davis as I felt Sole Volante was a strong overlay at anything above 2/1. My dutch win bet recommendation in the Tampa Bay Stakes was on March to the Arch and Caribou Club, with the former came up a nose and head shy of winning (and the other off the board). The previous week the dutching recommendation of Cheermeister and Summer Promise (at 7/2) in the Sweetest Chant worked well with the former winning at 7 to 1 then, similar to the Sam F. Davis, in the Swale I felt Mischevious Alex was an overlay at 9 to 5 or more. I felt the same about South Bend in the Dania Beach but he came up a head or two short.


As you can see, my current philosophy is in agreement with those in this thread who wrote when there is a strong opinion on a horse to bet that horse only, but there are many advantages to dutching as well.


Thanks again to everyone!!

Nothing wrong with dutching, but worth keeping in mind that there is no way to for a traditional handicapper to know or prove whether any horse is an overlay.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi Thask,

Since the only gamblers who can bet optimally are those (similar to blackjack players) with an accurate estimate of the probabilities, this really isn't an issue for the vast majority of traditional handicappers. When you talk about the stress of gambling, this is something that should only be an issue for professionals (I hope), but regardless, is a product of variance, not of bet size or bet type. Stilll, when they need to, pros betting optimally can always reduce their Kelly fraction when variance starts to get to them -- they're still betting optimally. For many that I know, this kind of reduction is a major goal.

As far as dutching goes, there's nothing wrong with it, but has the same drawback as bets in all traditional gambling -- you never know the value of an individual bet, only the aggregate value of your long term betting, assuming you keep good records.

Best,

lansdale

Hi lansdale,

I seldom refer to "professional gamblers/gambling" when I post on this board, because I am not sure if there are ANY professional gamblers in our group here. The gambling-related "stress" that I often talk about here is not confined to the "professionals"; I have seen it play a major role in the decision-making of the "non-professional" players, as well. In fact, the "non-professional" is more susceptible to this kind of stress, IMO...because he is exactly the sort of player whose betting threshold and risk tolerance are at their lowest point. The "professional" player is more aware of the variance swings and is better prepared for them -- both financially and emotionally -- than even the "serious amateur" is, IMO.

Yes..."optimal betting" is not ideally suited for horse-racing...but I still see the idea bantered about on this board. There are several sophisticated "pro-level" horseplayers who talk about optimal betting from time to time on this board...but up'til now their comments have been strictly theoretical. Perhaps more conversations like this one here might entice these players to reveal the "practicality" of their theories.

Best regards to you as well.

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Hi lansdale,

I seldom refer to "professional gamblers/gambling" when I post on this board, because I am not sure if there are ANY professional gamblers in our group here. The gambling-related "stress" that I often talk about here is not confined to the "professionals"; I have seen it play a major role in the decision-making of the "non-professional" players, as well. In fact, the "non-professional" is more susceptible to this kind of stress, IMO...because he is exactly the sort of player whose betting threshold and risk tolerance are at their lowest point. The "professional" player is more aware of the variance swings and is better prepared for them -- both financially and emotionally -- than even the "serious amateur" is, IMO.

Yes..."optimal betting" is not ideally suited for horse-racing...but I still see the idea bantered about on this board. There are several sophisticated "pro-level" horseplayers who talk about optimal betting from time to time on this board...but up'til now their comments have been strictly theoretical. Perhaps more conversations like this one here might entice these players to reveal the "practicality" of their theories.

Best regards to you as well.

Setting aside the question of 'professional' play, since that isn't necessarily relevant to the issue, it seems from what you say that you're describing the 'optimal betting' of traditional handicappers, which is a formula for disaster -- no wonder they feel stressed. Opimtal betting, whether Kelly or some other type of proportional betting can be adapted to horseracing, as it is now much more often in sports betting -- via mathematical models. But it won't work with a subjective, estimated edge -- assuming the latter even exists.

[paulbenny]

I support dutching as I migrate towards more time dedicated to wagering, which I have been. I think that in the pre ADW days it was easier to make a line and then take a position at the track live at post and be clear on return on investment.


Today even though some ADWs have this capability, to dutch automatically, those late cycles hit the spot on volatility. Thin pools destroy this process.


An overlay is an overlay is right. It gets back to the basic math of Sartin, doesn't it, along with win rate and post time odds.



So you maintain good records, and track the odds you bet at vs. actual post in the charts, and then back up your decisions. If you end up being hurt more than helped late, then maybe you are still correct, because your overlays are spot on net net.


This is pretty straight math.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by davew

Are there people that frequently bet cold exactas, cold trifectas, or cold superfectas?


I can only imagine how long a losing streak you would have between cashes betting a cold superfecta.

If you bet a superfecta like AB/ABC/ABCD/ABCD you have at least 7 guaranteed losers (unless deadhead involved)

How is this any different than betting 2,3,4 or 5 horses to win?

It isn't , cept for the higher odds factor.



No one would suggest only betting cold exotics, but if you tell them you bet two horses, they look at you like you have two heads.

[thaskalos]

Bet two horses...I say. Just make sure that one of them wins.

[JMan]

In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
Is paying too little and asking too much.


my 2 cents... but you can pay half.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Bet two horses...I say. Just make sure that one of them wins.

If betting two horses doesn't increase your hit rate substantially , time to retire.

[Nitro]

Okay fellas here’s one you might want to think about.
I’ve been making 3-entry Dutch Win bets at Hong Kong for many years now with much success.

I’ve been hitting at a comfortable average of 63% at the Happy Valley racecourse.
My average Profit Margin there over the last 3 seasons 47%.

However, there are also 2 restrictions for making a play.
1) A play (or not) is based on the combined odds of the 3 selected entries that must produce a 50% or higher Profit margin @ 4mins to post.

2) If 50% of the races on the program have already been hit at some point, than the remaining races become a “No play”.
Ex: If 5 races have been hit over the last 6 races, the remaining races become a pass.

So even though I’m hitting at a greater than 50% frequency rate the cushion used I believe makes the entire scheme more comfortable especially when making larger bets.

For more anticipated accuracy, I also maintain a separate record of how well this all performs based on the race Distances, Surfaces, and Class of horses that run from Sept to July at each race meeting.
.
It's all about keeping good records!

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Nitro

My average Profit Margin there over the last 3 seasons 47%.










If the races on the program have already been hit at some point, than the remaining races become a “No play”.
Ex: If 5 races have been hit over the last 6 races, the remaining races become a pass.

No one here is sure how you compute 'profit margin' but anything approaching that figure would make you the richest man in the world . Are

you ?


The second part makes no sense at all. Really.
'we stop betting because we are winning so much its making me nervous'

[AltonKelsey]

Guess it was a hard question