Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > Handicapper's Corner


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 06-11-2015, 10:09 AM   #1
romankoz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 101
Target Betting

I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.
romankoz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-11-2015, 12:12 PM   #2
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by romankoz
I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.
Google Labouchere. There are (at least) two distinct types of "due column"--the "I wanna win this much today" and variants on the "cancellation" method used in roulette. It sounds like you are mixing them together.
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 08:30 AM   #3
romankoz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 101
Darn, I just lost a posting so here goes again. I will shorten this one

After many years of tinkering with target betting I have come to realise you need to
a) make your objective per race a minimum of 1000 times the race objective and 2000 is even safer. Depends on your selecting history how confident you are.
b) the divisor must be commensurate to the odds of the horses in your betting price range, that is, it is silly to have a divisor of 3 if many of your selections are more than double the divisor figure.
c) to keep the run of outs down be prepared to mix win and place (in Oz place includes is part of one pool not two pools like your place and show)
d) be prepared to stop chasing if in any series you are X% ROI ahead pull the pin, take the profit on the series and start another.

How you keep the runs of outs down is dependent on how good a selector you are and making sure you actually feel strongly about the selection and the odds available. There are many races where the place bet has a stronger chance to get you a collect, at sensible odds, than a win bet when compared to one another.

Selection wise I like well fancied horses suited at the distance, track conditions, actual track and who can lead or sit on the pace most times.
romankoz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 08:46 AM   #4
DeltaLover
Registered user
 
DeltaLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: FALIRIKON DELTA
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by romankoz
I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.

Forget Labouchere, Martingale, or whatever else money management system. You can try any possible way you to change your betting amounts and "manage" your bankroll, without ever having absolutely no impact to your real EV.

While your bankroll is still small, it is OK to take shots from time to time, trying relatively big bets while you are trying to grow it thus you can employ some sort of a parlay betting scheme, to speed up the impact of your EV. More than these, what you are referring to as "target betting" or whatever else, is simply an illusion and nothing else.
__________________
whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent
Ludwig Wittgenstein
DeltaLover is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 11:02 AM   #5
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
If you are talking about "target betting" for the day you play, what percentage of the bankroll you have for that day are you trying to achieve?

For example, you have $100 to play with on any given day. How much do you want to have at the end of your betting day,including your $100?
Light is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 06:05 PM   #6
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaLover
Forget Labouchere, Martingale, or whatever else money management system. You can try any possible way you to change your betting amounts and "manage" your bankroll, without ever having absolutely no impact to your real EV.

While your bankroll is still small, it is OK to take shots from time to time, trying relatively big bets while you are trying to grow it thus you can employ some sort of a parlay betting scheme, to speed up the impact of your EV. More than these, what you are referring to as "target betting" or whatever else, is simply an illusion and nothing else.
Depends on how consistent one is, and what kind of ROI is generated. Pie-in-the-sky betting does not work well with any kind of money management. The gain from relatively fast turnover with a positive ROI can definitely be improved with money management.
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 07:20 PM   #7
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,872
Quote:
Depends on how consistent one is, and what kind of ROI is generated. Pie-in-the-sky betting does not work well with any kind of money management. The gain from relatively fast turnover with a positive ROI can definitely be improved with money management.
AMEN!

IMHO, statements like "Progressive betting is always bad," are just plain false.

IOW, if you have a negative expectancy the mathematically best way to play is to not play at all.

Admittedly, chase-the-money strategies are bad with a negative ROI, but then, so is every other betting system.

Understand that I am not suggesting that CtM is appropriate and/or comfortable for YOU.
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 07:52 PM   #8
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
These "raise-your-bets-as-you-lose" betting systems have never appealed to me. IMO, sizing our bets is a great idea...but the size of our bets should be determined by our level of confidence in the particular race...not by whether or not we lost our previous bet. I've met a couple of people who tell me that they've been successful with progression methods where the bets get larger as the losses mount, and I have no real reason to doubt them...but this type of progression isn't for me.

Sizing one's bets effectively is a very difficult endeavor, IMO, and it requires a lot of skill. Most players would do better with flat bets, I think...
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 08:32 PM   #9
Some_One
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by romankoz
I am not a big bettor which means flat stake betting sort of become boring because if I win I win peanuts. To add excitement to my betting I must admit I like what we call "Target Betting" but I know is called "Due Column Betting" in the USA. I like it because mentally trying to crack the TB code, that is, find a staking plan that works is one of my more interesting racing interests.

As it's just past midnight I am going to hit the cot but can I first ask what staking plans some of you use besides flat stake and betting to chances (betting to win X by dividing the odds into a target figure). I am guessing this has been covered before and if so let me know the past link to the thread but if you don't mind going again I would love to have a discussion.

Are there any target bettors amongst you, why and what do you do to stop the only reason why you will fail at this approach and that is the run of outs.
Sounds like a degen gambler to me, you want the action and high payoff and don't care about profit and structure.
Some_One is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 08:48 PM   #10
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
These "raise-your-bets-as-you-lose" betting systems have never appealed to me. IMO, sizing our bets is a great idea...but the size of our bets should be determined by our level of confidence in the particular race...not by whether or not we lost our previous bet. I've met a couple of people who tell me that they've been successful with progression methods where the bets get larger as the losses mount, and I have no real reason to doubt them...but this type of progression isn't for me.

Sizing one's bets effectively is a very difficult endeavor, IMO, and it requires a lot of skill. Most players would do better with flat bets, I think...
Again, it all depends on turnover and ROI. There is a very good reason why most serious bettors (at least those using computer models) "truncate outliers" and apply other standard statistical processes to clean the data before trundling off to bet. It avoids much of the self-delusion of "I'm profitable!!!" Unless one is very certain what one is doing AND has a fairly rapid turnover AND a decent ROI, money management approaches are much better in theory than in practice.

Conversely, as Dave pointed out above, if one has a real world negative ROI and the positive ROI is only on paper from past races, the best money management method is not betting at all.

In most cases, the positive ROI is an illusory cluster in a sprinkling of random data points. In such cases flat betting and percentage of bankroll schemes will keep a losing scheme in action longer. Good for the hobbyists and recreational bettors who would go belly up much faster if their strategies were applied more aggressively.

I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 08:59 PM   #11
Hoofless_Wonder
broken-down horseplayer
 
Hoofless_Wonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Portland, OR area
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
Again, it all depends on turnover and ROI. There is a very good reason why most serious bettors (at least those using computer models) "truncate outliers" and apply other standard statistical processes to clean the data before trundling off to bet. It avoids much of the self-delusion of "I'm profitable!!!" Unless one is very certain what one is doing AND has a fairly rapid turnover AND a decent ROI, money management approaches are much better in theory than in practice.
...
...
...
I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.
Why is "rapid turnover" a key to success? I'll agree that outliers need to be pruned from the winners - that makes sense. But can't a player with an ROI of 1.15 who makes 100 bets a year compete with a player with an ROI of 1.02 who makes 1000 bets per year?

As for a confidence factor, I'll agree with you (and Thask) that it's a very advanced skill. A computer would be one way to get around it, while flat wagering is another. I tend to almost fade myself - especially at Hong Kong. The more I like a horse, the less I bet - as they tend to be the ones that run out.....
__________________
Playing SRU Downs - home of the "no sweat" inquiries...
Defying the "laws" of statistics with every wager.
Hoofless_Wonder is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 09:02 PM   #12
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
AMEN!

IMHO, statements like "Progressive betting is always bad," are just plain false.

IOW, if you have a negative expectancy the mathematically best way to play is to not play at all.

Admittedly, chase-the-money strategies are bad with a negative ROI, but then, so is every other betting system.

Understand that I am not suggesting that CtM is appropriate and/or comfortable for YOU.
I think it is more related to turnover rate than anything else, including bank size. A strategy based on a small number of high returns can easily go seriously haywire when wagers are increased after losses. There are a number of "plateau" schemes that work reasonably well, but I much prefer the high turnover rate. Much easier to detect when something is wrong.

I think (purely my own strategies in my own wagering and DEFINITELY not recommended for anyone else) I would much rather use increase-after-losses than percentage of bankroll or flat betting. That is based on experience wagering, not simulations (although the simulations indicate the same--or better--results). I have used all three approaches at various times, and both the flat bets and percentage of bank bets come up way short in the return area. Again, that is only my own wagering.

Increasing wagers has a tendency to weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies rather rapidly. I think it may be a bit too fast for most.
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 09:05 PM   #13
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by traynor
I cannot imagine sizing wagers according to some subjective feeling of "confidence" in a particular race. I wager according to computer models, not subjective (and highly prone to errors of judgement) feelings about a race. YMMV.
I rely on subjective feelings of "confidence" when I bet. It took a long time for me to warm up to the idea, but I now feel quite comfortable swinging for the fences, when I see the proverbial "fastball down the middle". But it's a tricky topic...and I can fully understand those who feel differently than I do. I too was resistant to the idea, for a very long time.
__________________
Live to play another day.

Last edited by thaskalos; 06-12-2015 at 09:07 PM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 09:12 PM   #14
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder
Why is "rapid turnover" a key to success? I'll agree that outliers need to be pruned from the winners - that makes sense. But can't a player with an ROI of 1.15 who makes 100 bets a year compete with a player with an ROI of 1.02 who makes 1000 bets per year?

As for a confidence factor, I'll agree with you (and Thask) that it's a very advanced skill. A computer would be one way to get around it, while flat wagering is another. I tend to almost fade myself - especially at Hong Kong. The more I like a horse, the less I bet - as they tend to be the ones that run out.....

It depends on the size of the base population. The fewer the number of matches, the more likely it is that what one sees as a pattern is only a cluster in a random distribution. It is easy to believe one has detected a profitable pattern in something that matched 20 times in a 1000 races, and then go belly up chasing that something that may not occur again in the next 3000 or more races. A pattern with 200-300 or whatever matches in a thousand races can be more easily assumed (not always correctly) to be more representative of a "normal distribution."

It is not the how many bets a year that matters. It is the how often do the matches win that matters, and whether that win rate is the result of anomalies or a normal distribution. "Rapid turnover" refers to the win-to-match ratio rather than the frequency of wagers.

Last edited by traynor; 06-12-2015 at 09:16 PM.
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-12-2015, 09:27 PM   #15
traynor
Registered User
 
traynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
I rely on subjective feelings of "confidence" when I bet. It took a long time for me to warm up to the idea, but I now feel quite comfortable swinging for the fences, when I see the proverbial "fastball down the middle". But it's a tricky topic...and I can fully understand those who feel differently than I do. I too was resistant to the idea, for a very long time.
It is not resistance. As I have mentioned a number of times, I have two very distinct betting strategies, in both volume and size. The bread-and-butter betting is almost entirely automated--high volume, "modest" amounts. For serious wagers, I want to be on-track, close enough to the horses to smell them, watch them from the time they leave the barn until they are ready to be loaded, and make my decisions based on "highly subjective" factors such as appearance, demeanor, attitude, and previous trips.

However, that decision-making process took a LONG time to develop, and I base it on acquired skills and experience in the areas that most would consider "subjective." I hunt with a recurve, not a compound. No sight pins, no range finders, no carefully calculated distance corrections. I see what I want to hit, and everything after that is "purely subconscious." The next time I manage to get back to Japan I look forward to some very intensive immersion in the fine points of kyudo.
traynor is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.