Target Betting

[Dave Schwartz]

Traynor,

I agree with your perspective 100%!

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Traynor,

I agree with your perspective 100%!

Thank you.

[DeltaLover]

Setting aside the situation that we have a bankroll so big that our 5% bet (or whatever else you like to use) can move the line, I have to disagree with all those who believe that we should not change the size of our bets!

I think that not self weighted betting approach, is the best way to make a score.

The profile of most successful gambler is tight and aggressive. By this, I mean that he is not involved in many races, but when he decides to bet, his bets are both large and also placed in such as way to maximize the return in the case the he happens to be correct in his assessments.

The more "dull" your approach is, the higher the chances of a long term lose is.

Obviously, this is happening because by definition, the times you are going to have an edge are way fewer to those that you have a negative expectation. When betting out of a small bankroll, you need to wait until you find the most favouring circumstances when you should place a large bet, trying to take the maximum advantage possible and repeat the same procedure until your bankroll grows to some significant levels.

After the bankroll reaches some significant levels, we can afford to become even more creative, designing betting approaches based on parlay of two (or even more events), shooting in very high return while completely ignoring hedges.

As an example, assuming that we have a middle size bankroll of $10K (which is still not enough to bet for living) we can certainly afford to bet a 5-1 shot for $200 and if we are correct collecting $1,200, we can now go for the kill by betting all of our winnings, in a race that we feel that we can get something like a 4-1 return on our investment.. In the case that we are going to be correct, our bankroll will grow by over a 50% rate while our risk, is only going to be $200...

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

As an example, assuming that we have a middle size bankroll of $10K (which is still not enough to bet for living) we can certainly afford to bet a 5-1 shot for $200 and if we are correct collecting $1,200, we can now go for the kill by betting all of our winnings, in a race that we feel that we can get something like a 4-1 return on our investment.. In the case that we are going to be correct, our bankroll will grow by over a 50% rate while our risk, is only going to be $200...

The strategy that you've outlined is great for live bankroll tournaments. You might want to think about pursuing these type of tourneys, as you appear naturally geared for these 1-2 day forays. As far as long-term live betting is concerned, I don't think this modus operandi will be successful.......You have the potential to be a very potent tournament player.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Setting aside the situation that we have a bankroll so big that our 5% bet (or whatever else you like to use) can move the line, I have to disagree with all those who believe that we should not change the size of our bets!

I think that not self weighted betting approach, is the best way to make a score.

The profile of most successful gambler is tight and aggressive. By this, I mean that he is not involved in many races, but when he decides to bet, his bets are both large and also placed in such as way to maximize the return in the case the he happens to be correct in his assessments.

The more "dull" your approach is, the higher the chances of a long term lose is.

Obviously, this is happening because by definition, the times you are going to have an edge are way fewer to those that you have a negative expectation. When betting out of a small bankroll, you need to wait until you find the most favouring circumstances when you should place a large bet, trying to take the maximum advantage possible and repeat the same procedure until your bankroll grows to some significant levels.

After the bankroll reaches some significant levels, we can afford to become even more creative, designing betting approaches based on parlay of two (or even more events), shooting in very high return while completely ignoring hedges.

As an example, assuming that we have a middle size bankroll of $10K (which is still not enough to bet for living) we can certainly afford to bet a 5-1 shot for $200 and if we are correct collecting $1,200, we can now go for the kill by betting all of our winnings, in a race that we feel that we can get something like a 4-1 return on our investment.. In the case that we are going to be correct, our bankroll will grow by over a 50% rate while our risk, is only going to be $200...

So...we select a 5/1 and a 4/1 shot...and BOTH have to win in order for us to go home with a profit.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

The strategy that you've outlined is great for live bankroll tournaments. You might want to think about pursuing these type of tourneys, as you appear naturally geared for these 1-2 day forays. As far as long-term live betting is concerned, I don't think this modus operandi will be successful.......You have the potential to be a very potent tournament player.

I have never participated in a horse betting tournament.. It should be fun though..

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

[/COLOR]

So...we select a 5/1 and a 4/1 shot...and BOTH have to win in order for us to go home with a profit.

Something like this.. Of course instead of both winning, we might workout some kind of a different execution if we can bet our horse in the second position on the exactas, maintaining a similar rate..

Do you think you can go way with less risk?

[Light]

Yes, what type of bet(s) are those who claim to be using target betting using? Is it win, place, show, exactas, or some form of exotics? No mention of the practical. Just abstract theory.

[Robert Fischer]

i don't believe in these types of systems

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Something like this.. Of course instead of both winning, we might workout some kind of a different execution if we can bet our horse in the second position on the exactas, maintaining a similar rate..

Do you think you can go way with less risk?

These parlay systems may have their place in the game...but I wouldn't recommend that the $200 bettor engage in them. A $10,000 bankroll is considered sizeable. It offers options to the bettor...and it also deserves respect. The truth is that only a tiny minority of the bettors ever get to the level where they regularly wager $200 on a horse...and the talk of cavalierly raising the bet to $1,200 on a particular horse simply defies logic...IMO. I know that some people consider parlays to be some sort of "leverage", where, in your example, a $4,800 profit is sought with only a $200 out-of-pocket investment...but there are TWO ways of looking at this scenario. The guy with the $10,000 bankroll sees his bankroll rise to $11,000 after the first 5/1 winner...and that's a 10% bankroll increase, after only one race! If he turns around and bets $1,200 to win on the next horse...then he is betting 11% of his bankroll on a single horse...and that can hardly be considered prudent. Yes, he"ll argue that, since his first bet won, he is now taking this shot mainly with the "track's money"...but I don't subscribe to thinking of that sort. Once the money gets in MY pocket...then I consider it MINE, and I treat it as such.

Take a shot with a short bankroll all you want...and you"ll get no argument from me. But $10,000 isn't a short bankroll. A $200 bet on a 5/1 winner earns you a $1,000...and most people would consider that a good week's pay. A horseplayer has to RESPECT a $1,000 daily profit...he can't afford to view it with disdain. This is a tough game...

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Light

Yes, what type of bet(s) are those who claim to be using target betting using? Is it win, place, show, exactas, or some form of exotics? No mention of the practical. Just abstract theory.

It doesn't matter what type of bet. Bottom line is that a real world positive ROI is necessary, not some rainbow-chaser fantasy based on backfitting to a small sample to "locate" positive returns. Unless you have a real world positive ROI (clean data, meaningful sample size, well tested, and "normally distributed"), no further discussion on money management is going to make the least bit of difference, other than "bet small, bet infrequently, and try to wean yourself from betting completely." That is practical. No abstract theory.

[Robert Fischer]

If you are the rare elite player who somehow has a positive ROI, there's really no sense in using a due column or parlay. Even positive-expectation-Win-Betting is no guarantee free from peaks and valleys that come with natural results.

If you are like myself and don't have a positive ROI, it's probably not a good idea either.


If you have a good understanding of what such money-management systems actually leverage (and at what expense), and you make a conscious decision to "gamble", and you are perfectly fine with that, -then you can play along and try to get lucky with a hyper-aggressive type of strategy.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

If you are the rare elite player who somehow has a positive ROI, there's really no sense in using a due column or parlay. Even positive-expectation-Win-Betting is no guarantee free from peaks and valleys that come with natural results.

If you are like myself and don't have a positive ROI, it's probably not a good idea either.


If you have a good understanding of what such money-management systems actually leverage (and at what expense), and you make a conscious decision to "gamble", and you are perfectly fine with that, -then you can play along and try to get lucky with a hyper-aggressive type of strategy.

"Rare elite player" is something I have never encountered. The same goes for hyper-aggressive. Agressive? Absolutely. Hard-nose, no-nonsense, all-business, never-mind-that-drivel-about-sport-or-recreation? Absolutely.

I have encountered an ample number of aggressive, business-like bettors who have, have had, and will most likely continue to have, a healthy positive ROI. Most of that group I encountered, associated with, and became friends with during a graduate program in business management. None (to the best of my knowledge) equates it with tilting at windmills, finding The Answer to the Great Pari-Mutuel Riddle, or anything remotely like it. It is just another way to make money.

I have a very difficult time trying to imagine what motivation would lead a person to bet--some for years and years--while losing money. If it were not for the money, what would anyone even care about races, much less bet on them?

The best thing about due column and similar money management strategies is that they VERY quickly weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies. I think that is why so many avoid them like the plague--including those who believe they are "winners."

[Light]

Originally Posted by traynor

It doesn't matter what type of bet. Bottom line is that a real world positive ROI is necessary, not some rainbow-chaser fantasy based on backfitting to a small sample to "locate" positive returns. Unless you have a real world positive ROI (clean data, meaningful sample size, well tested, and "normally distributed"), no further discussion on money management is going to make the least bit of difference, other than "bet small, bet infrequently, and try to wean yourself from betting completely." That is practical. No abstract theory.

To me, this response is more abstract theory or "doubletalk". If you actually use target betting, you must have structure. You can't use any type of bet that comes to your whim. You can't say, I want to make $100 today. Let's see, I'll bet an exacta here and a pk3 there. That's not "Target betting". That's what everyone does. That has no structure or strategy. The fact that you don't say what type of bet you use for "target betting", just confirms that you are simply "theorizing" on "target betting", but don't actually use it. And I don't mean "you" as the only "theorist" here.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

"Rare elite player" is something I have never encountered. The same goes for hyper-aggressive. Agressive? Absolutely. Hard-nose, no-nonsense, all-business, never-mind-that-drivel-about-sport-or-recreation? Absolutely.

I have encountered an ample number of aggressive, business-like bettors who have, have had, and will most likely continue to have, a healthy positive ROI. Most of that group I encountered, associated with, and became friends with during a graduate program in business management. None (to the best of my knowledge) equates it with tilting at windmills, finding The Answer to the Great Pari-Mutuel Riddle, or anything remotely like it. It is just another way to make money.

I have a very difficult time trying to imagine what motivation would lead a person to bet--some for years and years--while losing money. If it were not for the money, what would anyone even care about races, much less bet on them?

The best thing about due column and similar money management strategies is that they VERY quickly weed out the wishful thinking strategies from the solid strategies. I think that is why so many avoid them like the plague--including those who believe they are "winners."

You mean to tell me that the bettor who makes flat-bets instead of using a due column, may spend years deluding himself that he is a winner...when he is really a loser? How can that be? What is it that makes the due columns and the parlays the "reality check" that you portray them to be?

I think losing (and winning) in gambling is pretty unambiguous. The loser may mislead OTHERS about his status as a player...but he'll have a hard time convincing HIMSELF that he is a winner...when he is really a loser. We can PRETEND that we win at the track...but we are sure to run into considerable trouble if we actually go out and try to spend our "pretend" winnings.