General Money Management Discussion

[Imriledup]

Originally Posted by nobeyerspls

Let me give you two recent examples, one involving failure and the other success. I have to redboard here but maybe by including the failure I'll be forgiven.
I found two horses in the second race at Arlington a while back. One was 8-1 and the other 40-1. The favorite had to be respected so I boxed those three in tri and used my two on top of exactas. I really liked the 8-1 so I bet him win/place and started a pick3 (1x3x2) with him. He was off the board, the 40-1 won, and the favorite ran third. I got zilch. Adding the longshot to the pick 3 would have been an extra $6 and would have produced over $400.
The race following the Prince of Wales Stakes at Fort Erie yielded one of those rare surface plays that I search for on a daily basis. A filly coming out of fast races on Woodbines polytrack where she performed poorly was entered in a maiden race comprised of very slow animals. When you find one like this the first decision is vertical, horizontal, or both. Since I could not find any other horses in that race, I chose horizontal. $8 doubles with my two horses in the stakes and $4 pick3's with three horses in the prior race. My key horse in the last race won by five lengths and paid $38.50. I cashed all the bets and the leverage from the horizontal plays more than doubled what I would have won just betting her straight.
So, I see handicapping and wagering as separate but equal disciplines.

So, its not about wagering, its about affordability. Did you NOT include the 40-1 because you felt it was a bad handicapping decision, or did you not include him because you really didn't want to afford the extra money? The worst thing a horseplayer can say to himself is, "aah, thats not going to win, let me save the money"

[nobeyerspls]

I was nuts about the 8-1. However, using the longshot on top of the trifecta and not in the pick3 was a major mistake. That's why I used it as an example.

[Bill Olmsted]

Originally Posted by nobeyerspls

I was nuts about the 8-1. However, using the longshot on top of the trifecta and not in the pick3 was a major mistake. That's why I used it as an example.

Here we have an example of why the masses lose.

[nobeyerspls]

Hiya Cratos
Nice to hear a voice from my past. I haven't posted in awhile because I grew tired of the speed figure debate. Also completed my first novel which I am trying to get published.
My dad took me to the races in 1956 when I was thirteen and I really enjoyed it. My mother, sensing my growing interest and concerned about a future gambling problem, told me that nobody could beat the races. In a sense she was right because at that time there were no exotics except the double and only eight races at the local track.
Then came both vertical and horizontal exotics that could be constructed across several venues. It is that leverage that helped me prove my mother wrong. Consider a recent pick3 that paid $632. The odds were 6/5, 10-1, and 5/2. When you do the math on a parlay you sense the value of the exotic. In the last two legs horses at 3/5 and 4/5 were 2nd and 3rd. They made the trifectas low in each race but they elevated the pick3 payout.
Sometimes when a trifecta loses or I'm two out of three in a pick, I wish I had just played the winner straight. But then there are those mega-cashes that validate the strategy long term.

[Robert Fischer]

i am a spot player, and i find that I do best when planning ahead and following that plan. (assuming the plan is sound and my handicapping is sound).

With exotics I try to use light OR heavy coverage but I try to stay out of a middle ground. I hate to lose a $40 pick 4. Heavy coverage affords more opportunities for leverage between both single and multi race exotics, but I want to have a specific reason that calls for heavy coverage or else I would prefer to pass or make a small wager with my highest percentage horses.

[nobeyerspls]

How is earning the right to bet more different from that old saw - "playing with their money"? Most small businesses fail because they are under capitalized. If you treat this like a business venture simply commit to full capitalization.
I always bet the same amount whether I'm up or down. Their money is behind the wickets, mine is in my wallet.

[nobeyerspls]

I suppose I am among the masses but then again I don't always lose. I used that example to highlight a mistake. Wasn't the worst one I ever made.
Consider this. I find a maiden who can win a 2yo stakes races. Do a $4 straight pick3 with him winning the last leg at 8-1 (I wasn't the only one who liked him). $272 pick3. But wait, that's not all. The last leg of the pick4 was next, eleven maiden fillies going 7f. I handicapped it and used six horses. After all, the "all button" is a denial of intellect. The 2nd longshot on the board, but not on my ticket, won the race. I "saved" $5 to avoid cashing for $6,300. I kept that losing ticket as a reminder for several years. Had to throw it away when the print faded.
I'm inlcined to use the all button once in awhile.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by spilparc

Earn the right to bet more money.

[By the way, most horseplayers have no concept of money management whatsoever. One race they'll bet $20 to win and on another race the'll bet $60. And in yet a third race, they'll bet $50 to win and $50 worth of exactas, tris and pick 3s. Why? Two reasons: 1. No plan. 2. They had a better "feeling " in the latter two races.]

I don't disagree about earning the right to bet more money, or about the fact that money management alone can't turn a flat-bet loss into a profit, or about needing a plan for your wagering. But I think there's something to be said for varying your wager size in a systematic manner based on the disparity between what you think a horse's chances are and what the public thinks, as long as your estimate has a reliable basis to it (such as statistical probabilities) that can be replicated from race to race, rather than depending (as you put it) on "feeling".

[Bill Olmsted]

So that's what you guys what, eh? Beautiful lies? Listen. I got a million of em. Just pay me and I'll massage your misconceptions all night long.

[DJofSD]

Start with $200. Bet 1% of your bankroll to win only with a $2 minimum bet. When your bankroll doubles, you can raise your bet to $4. When it doubles again you can raise your bet to $8. If your bankroll should fall back down to a previous level--lower your bet to that old level.

Isn't that what Dick Schmidt preached, what is it now, 20 years ago?

I guess one theory of managing money is the start up company and the VC perspective -- get a pile of money, hope the burn rate isn't too great and try to stay around long enough until the "investment" pays off.

[ddog]

flat bet winners - no way.
play in multiple races at the same time - no way.
stay in ONE race.
Find out HOW to pick the races to play that will pay.
I don't care who wins 90% of the races I play.

If you can find the right races (no it's NOT A FEELING) then you can't bet enough money.
Back years ago when I used to go to simo I couldn't pick a winner any better than 75% of the people in the place.

But, they couldn't wait for the shot and most didn't know when the shot was lined up.

It's so tiresome to hear people say what can't be done and no you don't need a massive bankroll to start to play that way.
Find ONE race a day or a week and commit.
it needs to HURT if you are wrong.
I saw more people bleed money away over the years with that 1% crap.

20 years ago, yeah 20 years ago.


JMHO , but it works for me.

[nobeyerspls]

The disparity between what you think and what the public thinks about a horse shows up on the odds board. Are you saying to bet less if the disparity is greater? Being influenced by the odds board ranks way up there on the list of wrong things to do.
Also, how to quantify this "feeling" about a horse? Over fifty years I have found seven reasons to bet a horse. Sometimes, although rarely, two of those reasons show up in the same horse. That might qualify as a "reliable basis" to use your term.

[nobeyerspls]

Tried to figure out what you do and I think I found it. You make multiple trifecta or superfecta wagers on a very selective basis and you do not key any one horse. Is that right? Any advice on how to find that one key race?

[nobeyerspls]

Just looked at the website you cited. This guys advice? Don't handicap!

His approach is interersting and some of his statistics are eye-openers. Thanks for the reference.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by nobeyerspls

The disparity between what you think and what the public thinks about a horse shows up on the odds board. Are you saying to bet less if the disparity is greater? Being influenced by the odds board ranks way up there on the list of wrong things to do.
Also, how to quantify this "feeling" about a horse? Over fifty years I have found seven reasons to bet a horse. Sometimes, although rarely, two of those reasons show up in the same horse. That might qualify as a "reliable basis" to use your term.

No, I was referring to a horse being overlaid (where the fair odds of winning that you assign to the horse are lower than the odds established by the public) as a positive sign.

As you say, quantifying a horse's (or each horse in a field's) chance of winning, and doing it reliably race after race, are a challenge. For me, probabilities associated with key aspects of performance covering the major handicapping areas help in that regard. Keeping the entire field in view from a fair-odds standpoint (rather than focusing on narrowing a field down to the most likely winner through a process of elimination) is also useful in providing alternatives when individual horses or specific spot-play angles start being overbet.