Betting on all horses in a race? Nay or yay?

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by cj

Or, you could actually just donate 20% of what you are going to lose betting to charity. That way you're a good samaritan and you come out ahead financially since you'll lose 25% or more betting every horse!

Correct. "Regression to the mean".

[lefty359]

Correction to my original post. The author said to play for 4 longshots a race you need about $3000, not $300. His charts start on a $5 scale, no reason you couldn't start on a smaller scale, but be prepared for long strings of losers.

[Bustin Stones]

I suppose if you became expert at picking vulnerable favorites, you could do somewhat better than losing 25% by betting every other horse.

[Fingal]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Betting on all the horses in the race is effective when you are trying to impress people so you can sell them some handicapping product. You just have to remember which pocket holds the winning ticket. You would have to wager more than $1 per horse though...

Suppose it would depend on the price of the program one is selling. Say it's an eight horse race, putting $100 to win on each for that $800 outlay might end up cheaper for that customer acquisition cost than sending out the traditional glossy advertising brochures.

And if the winner returns over $20 the bonus is making a few bucks on the deal.

[barbaro123]

Originally Posted by Horsery

I was beginning to hijack my own thread that was about machines accidentally claiming that winning tickets were losers, so I thought a thread specifically for betting on all horses in a race was ideal. I personally think betting on all horses is a yay for me. That's how I bet. Put money on each horse to guarantee that I win something, and hope that the longshot wins. I've won huge when the longshot wins like when I won about $32 on a $1 when the longshot won. In general, the horses are about 8 horses in the race, so I play $8 and I'm guaranteed at least a dollar or two back, a $6-7 loss isn't a big deal to me, and it's worked out splendidly when the longshot wins.

I did that when I bet on the Belmont and Sarava, the longest shot on the board - won --- I put 5.00 on each horse in that race and I believe Sarava paid 300+ dollars for me that day : I am sorry he passed away recently. very sad.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Horsery

I was beginning to hijack my own thread that was about machines accidentally claiming that winning tickets were losers, so I thought a thread specifically for betting on all horses in a race was ideal. I personally think betting on all horses is a yay for me. That's how I bet. Put money on each horse to guarantee that I win something, and hope that the longshot wins. I've won huge when the longshot wins like when I won about $32 on a $1 when the longshot won. In general, the horses are about 8 horses in the race, so I play $8 and I'm guaranteed at least a dollar or two back, a $6-7 loss isn't a big deal to me, and it's worked out splendidly when the longshot wins.

yay

i always bet every horse

but I cancel a lot of would-be wagers

it's half mental

Twenty Dollars to 'Show' on the chalk in next race, and then quickly cancel that ticket... Now, you have a $20 Voucher.

voucher---> ticket---->voucher

this is a process

next thing you know you have a chicken noodle soup, and two blue moons

2 blue moons?

you're looking for chaos

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

yay

i always bet every horse

but I cancel a lot of would-be wagers

it's half mental

Twenty Dollars to 'Show' on the chalk in next race, and then quickly cancel that ticket... Now, you have a $20 Voucher.

voucher---> ticket---->voucher

this is a process

next thing you know you have a chicken noodle soup, and two blue moons

2 blue moons?

you're looking for chaos

By the tone of your post, you must be running good, right?..That's all it is..you're finally running good..

[The_Turf_Monster]

Just remember. All means ALL. There are no free lunches when you leave a horse or two out of your strategy lol

[sjk]

I ran the stats for fun and of course this is an enormous loser everywhere else but you would be money ahead if you had bet GP tapeta this way from inception.

lol

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

By the tone of your post, you must be running good, right?..That's all it is..you're finally running good..

still alive

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by sjk

I ran the stats for fun and of course this is an enormous loser everywhere else but you would be money ahead if you had bet GP tapeta this way from inception.

lol

And they wonder why some people are reluctant to play synthetics.

I think that kind of screams that the models of handicapping used for dirt and turf don't work as well on synthetic and people are still struggling to figure out how to assign fair odds. Of course there could be some strategic advantage to throwing out the book and looking for a new way of thinking about these races, but I haven't found it.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

And they wonder why some people are reluctant to play synthetics.

I think that kind of screams that the models of handicapping used for dirt and turf don't work as well on synthetic and people are still struggling to figure out how to assign fair odds. Of course there could be some strategic advantage to throwing out the book and looking for a new way of thinking about these races, but I haven't found it.

The original poster likes to bet every horse in every race because they are either trolling or think they will win that way. It has nothing to do with models or synthetics or anything else. Betting every horse is an idiotic strategy and no models will ever say anything but that.

[Poindexter]

As long as we are on this subject, a question for those with a large database.

1) I suspect that betting an equal amount in every race on each horse will fare better in races where the favorite is >2-1, or maybe even 3-1+? From my tiny database it seems like the weaker the favorite is (from the public's perception), the more likely chaotic results seem to happen. Obviously you don't know for sure what the favorite will go off at until the race is off, but you can typically guess.


As laughable as this subject is, will he do any worse than the non rebated layman, playing 22%+ takeout exotics throughout the country against the
Caw? Something to think about.

[thaskalos]

Let's cut the guy some slack. He makes $1 win bets, and wants to guarantee himself a win. No harm done if you do it infrequently, and in a small way. The people whom I feel sorry for are the ones who burn the midnight oil while studying the past performances...and still they lose 20%+ of what they bet.

[sjk]

Where the favorite is >=2-1 the results are better in the sense that -22% is better than -26%. Probably none of the above is the way to go.