Target Betting

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by traynor

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."

There simply isn't a lot of justification for using something like a due column system if you are good enough to be profitable.

You are essentially over-betting your bankroll. You are increasing risk of failure in exchange for faster returns.

Much wiser to bet a kelly-based amount(or similar) that you know to be both safe while not leaving a bunch of money on the table.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

There simply isn't a lot of justification for using something like a due column system if you are good enough to be profitable.

You are essentially over-betting your bankroll. You are increasing risk of failure in exchange for faster returns.

Much wiser to bet a kelly-based amount(or similar) that you know to be both safe while not leaving a bunch of money on the table.

I could not disagree more. Life--and everything in it--is transitory. When the profit is available, take it. If you don't, someone else will. None of it is going to last forever. If you want to be safe, don't bet.

The greatest hindrance to making a profit from wagering on horse races is the attempt to only make safe bets. (The second greatest hindrance is probably betting on unsafe bets, but that is another story.) Seriously. Horse racing is dynamic--it changes. If you have something that is profitable, leverage it as much and as fast as you can, because someone else is going to find the same thing and milk the cash cow dry.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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.

Pretty simple stuff. If one has a (slightly) negative or (approximately) even ROI over time (or has deep pockets and other resources) flat betting or percentage of bankroll will extend that person's "ability to play" for a considerable time. Especially for those wagering "significant amounts" and enjoying generous rebates.

Try a progressive wagering strategy with a negative or break-even ROI, and the shortcomings become obvious quite quickly.

I think you may be mistaken about how (many or most) bettors perceive their activity. I know people who are so far in the red that if daddy didn't run a chaebol they would be out on the street--yet declare themselves to be "about even" or "a little ahead." Not to me (because I don't care) but rather to themselves. That positive thinking stuff can be costly.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

Pretty simple stuff. If one has a (slightly) negative or (approximately) even ROI over time (or has deep pockets and other resources) flat betting or percentage of bankroll will extend that person's "ability to play" for a considerable time. Especially for those wagering "significant amounts" and enjoying generous rebates.

Try a progressive wagering strategy with a negative or break-even ROI, and the shortcomings become obvious quite quickly.

I think you may be mistaken about how (many or most) bettors perceive their activity. I know people who are so far in the red that if daddy didn't run a chaebol they would be out on the street--yet declare themselves to be "about even" or "a little ahead." Not to me (because I don't care) but rather to themselves. That positive thinking stuff can be costly.

I have found the opposite to be true. The due columns and the progressions sometimes give the illusion of profitability...simply because the winning days greatly outnumber the losing ones. The bettor can deceive himself for a considerable time...until the disastrous (and inevitable) losing streak comes along, and brings him back to reality.

I am well acquainted with a gentleman who has gone from being the proud owner of two successful businesses and two paid-off apartment buildings, to living in a friend's basement, with no possessions other than the clothes on his back...all as a result of his horse-betting addiction. Ask him how he has done at the track during his gambling life...and he'll tell you that he is still slightly ahead. I listen to him...and I am convinced that it's just a story that he likes to tell others...in order to avoid the further inquiries that a different answer might lead to. I am pretty sure that he is well-aware of the reasons for his financial demise...

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have found the opposite to be true. The due columns and the progressions sometimes give the illusion of profitability...simply because the winning days greatly outnumber the losing ones. The bettor can deceive himself for a considerable time...until the disastrous (and inevitable) losing streak comes along, and brings him back to reality.

I am well acquainted with a gentleman who has gone from being the proud owner of two successful businesses and two paid-off apartment buildings, to living in a friend's basement, with no possessions other than the clothes on his back...all as a result of his horse-betting addiction. Ask him how he has done at the track during his gambling life...and he'll tell you that he is still slightly ahead. I listen to him...and I am convinced that it's just a story that he likes to tell others...in order to avoid the further inquiries that a different answer might lead to. I am pretty sure that he is well-aware of the reasons for his financial demise...

Don't misinterpret my intention. I am not recommending progressive wagering. I am recommendig a cold, hard look at what one is actually doing, and--if it is not profitable--to either improve the strategy or back off on wagering. I have seen quite a few people who wager, but not too many who wager skillfully enough to be considered "successful bettors." Of that not too many, most seem to aggressively pursue optimal profits. Conversely, the ones who are not doing as well tend to seek continued betting (rather than profit) as their goal. Slight (in percentages) losses or minimal wins are considered "winning strategies" because they enable continued betting. Flat betting and percentage of bankroll (and various similar schemes) tend to prevail.

It is not so much that I consider what they are doing "wrong" as that I think they could do much better if they were a bit more honest with themselves about just how well they are actually doing. If it's broke, fix it. The Arthur Anderson School of Creative Accounting thrives in the "records" of many bettors.

[traynor]

Due column (or other progressive wagering strategies) only work when the ROI is real--not wishful thinking based on best case scenarios, small samples, backfitting, and complete avoidance of the most basic processes of data cleaning. Attempting such a wagering strategy without that "real ROI" is a recipe for disaster. So is using flat bets or percentage of bankroll with that same deficient strategy--it just takes longer for disaster to strike.


I think a lot of bettors could improve theri return by objectively evaluating their present methods--and, if deficient in the profit area--improving them. Believing something profitable that is not so is harmful. It also destroys any motivation to improve it.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have found the opposite to be true. The due columns and the progressions sometimes give the illusion of profitability...simply because the winning days greatly outnumber the losing ones. The bettor can deceive himself for a considerable time...until the disastrous (and inevitable) losing streak comes along, and brings him back to reality.

I am well acquainted with a gentleman who has gone from being the proud owner of two successful businesses and two paid-off apartment buildings, to living in a friend's basement, with no possessions other than the clothes on his back...all as a result of his horse-betting addiction. Ask him how he has done at the track during his gambling life...and he'll tell you that he is still slightly ahead. I listen to him...and I am convinced that it's just a story that he likes to tell others...in order to avoid the further inquiries that a different answer might lead to. I am pretty sure that he is well-aware of the reasons for his financial demise...

Or thoroughly convinced that one "big score" is all it will take to set everything right. No matter how deep one is in, that "life changing score" still shines brightly, lighting the way even further into lala land.

I think most people are far more adept at fooling themselves than they are at fooling others. I think most of those others are a lot like me--they don't really care. Most efforts at "impression management" are for self-benefit, to prop up a self-image otherwise in danger of collapse.

[romankoz]

I am sorry but I am not sure what you mean by EV. When I know that I will reply with more depth.

[romankoz]

Depends on the number of races. If it's one meeting, say nine races, the objective using one hundred dollars is 0.10c per race or $0.90 for the day.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

Or thoroughly convinced that one "big score" is all it will take to set everything right. No matter how deep one is in, that "life changing score" still shines brightly, lighting the way even further into lala land.

I think most people are far more adept at fooling themselves than they are at fooling others. I think most of those others are a lot like me--they don't really care. Most efforts at "impression management" are for self-benefit, to prop up a self-image otherwise in danger of collapse.

Hope remains in the heart...even when all else is lost. It's a self-preservation mechanism, I think. We need some sort of "hope" in order to keep going during the tough times. But hope isn't the same as self-delusion, IMO. The losing horseplayer who is expecting things to improve in his financial life is being "normal", as I see it...while the habitual loser who truly considers himself a "winner" is exhibiting the sort of behavior which allows psychiatrists to drive around in Rolls Royces.

[romankoz]

It seems my original posting is heading away from where I am at. I have read all the plus and minus issues against target betting over the years where the mathematicians say "you cannot win on a progressive staking plan like target betting" if you do not show a positive ROI. I am the first to say if your LOT (Loss On Turnover) is too high, say 10%, you have little hope if any betting progressively and, of course, you should not be betting.

What I will suggest is if you show a small loss of say 2-3% ROI you have a chance of getting in front on a series of bets by betting progressively BUT you will fail if there is no correlation between the bank, the amount sought per race, the divisor in relation to your mode price range (it needs to be a high mode range) and a cut off point where you accept a profit less than the sought amount of say 10%: it can be more but I believe 10% is fine. It's a profit.

So what do I mean.

If I am seeking $0.10 per race and 90% of my bets are prices akin to prices of the average favourite (I have seen studies that suggests this is around 6/4 or $5 USA) my divisor should be about twice the 6/4 figure at 3/1.No particular maths involved: just a gut feel figure. From there you seek your $0.10 per race plus previous losses always dividing by 3 unless you have 10% situation where you really, really fancy something outside of your 90% mode range and you divide by the price received when higher than 3.
Now I am assuming you can select proper winning or placing chances (place being 1-2-3 spots in Oz),and you run of outs is minimal and you either win a small ROI, break square or show a minor losing ROI. SOmewhere along the line you MUST come good and the question for the target bettor doubters is where is "somewhere" and I follow that, of course. If you are dividing by 3 and that winner arrive at 2/1 it's almost certain you have cleared past losses and are actually ahead on a series of bets but you will not be ahead by the total desired amount. If you are 10% or more ahead in the series accept the profit and start again. In a previous posting suggested seeking 1/1000 of your bank as the target but why not make it 1/2000 hence to seek $.10 per race you need a bank of $200.
Now, seriously, is anyone on this list who is a small ROI loser, going to tell me that seeking $0.10 per race on a $200 bank by target betting is not within their reach.
The flat stake bettors might suggest you bet 5% of your bank thus on $200 = $4 and over time you will lose say 2% or $0.08c x 100 = $8 on every 100 bets. How boring? I would rather try and win $0.10 per race target betting knowing I have a CHANCE of winning and turning the 2% losing ROI into a profit with minimal raising of stakes as opposed to a guaranteed flat stake loss.
Before anybody suggests $0.10 as a bit of a joke keep in mind it's an example figure.
Anyhow, it's my opinion a small bettor, and let's face it $200 is small, is far better off having a go target betting than flat staking or any equivalents like betting to prices.
Can I suggest anyone who doesn't like target betting just has a play with some ball park figures with bad runs making sure there is a small ROI loss flat stake. Then have a play with my ideas and see what you think. Now I know someone will say ok I have written a list which has 20 losers followed by 19 collects at 1/1 thus is showing a small ROI loss. My bank went bust on that scenario, they could and would say. Well, of course it would but I would counter that with if you are that bad as a tipster take up knitting. That sort of nonsense is like the simulations I have read about. Yes, mathematically over 1000 bets you can have 500 straight losers followed by 500 straight collects at 1/1 but dead set is that actually something you would offer about horseracing where judgement on form study comes into the equation.
I will use one wild example. If American Paharoah started 1/1 in 100 races would you really expect him to lose 50 in a row. Come on!
Remember I am suggesting this for the small bettor.If you bet big, show a positive ROI keep going your way, for sure.
Sorry, it's a long posting but I keep typing when I am on a roll.

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by romankoz

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.

Can you understand why, for the 99.9% of horserace handicappers who are long-term losers, this might not work? The only result for them would that they lose their money much faster. There is no such thing as short-term positive ROI - either you have a long-term edge (years of successful play) or not. Belief in the efficacy of any kind of progressive betting method is the mark of deluded, losing gamblers since time immemorial. If you don't believe me, call the math dept. of a local college and give them a laugh by reading your post. You may think I'm being harsh here, but I'm really trying to give you and any another, likely youthful sucker who reads this a break.

[Dave Schwartz]

What I will suggest is if you show a small loss of say 2-3% ROI you have a chance of getting in front on a series of bets by betting progressively BUT you will fail if there is no correlation between the bank, the amount sought per race, the divisor in relation to your mode price range (it needs to be a high mode range) and a cut off point where you accept a profit less than the sought amount of say 10%: it can be more but I believe 10% is fine. It's a profit.

What you stated above (the bold part) sounds a lot like "If I am just a small mathematical loser, I can make this work."

Alas, nothing could be farther from the truth.

If this would work, why not just take it to the casino and chase the money on pass line bets at the crap table? That relatively minuscule negative expectancy will get you in the LONG RUN.

How long is the long run? Perhaps someone here can work that out for you, but my point is WITH A NEGATIVE EXPECTANCY YOU WILL LOSE.


Now, you can pretend that it won't matter and play, winning most days, depending upon how hard you chase. But there will be a comeuppance. You will pay it all back and more.

That is why casinos stay in business year after year.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by romankoz

I am sorry but I am not sure what you mean by EV. When I know that I will reply with more depth.

EV = Expected Value (the expected frequency of occurrence of an event over a "long-run" series of trials). For example, the expected value of specifically getting "heads" on any one flip of a fair coin would be .5.). (Half the time you'd get heads, and half the time you wouldn't.)

If there is a payout of some kind associated with wagering on the outcome of an event, the expected value determines the "fair odds" connected with the wager. In the case of the coin flip, "fair odds" would be a payoff at odds of 1-1 every time you were right. For example, you bet $1.00, you get $2.00 back (your original dollar, plus a dollar profit). Any payoff less than "fair odds" would give an edge to whoever was offering the odds that you were accepting on the event.

Contributors to the thread are making the point that there is no way that any method of betting (including progression) can turn a wager that has a negative expected value into one that has a positive expected value.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by traynor

I could not disagree more. Life--and everything in it--is transitory. When the profit is available, take it. If you don't, someone else will. None of it is going to last forever. If you want to be safe, don't bet.

The greatest hindrance to making a profit from wagering on horse races is the attempt to only make safe bets. (The second greatest hindrance is probably betting on unsafe bets, but that is another story.) Seriously. Horse racing is dynamic--it changes. If you have something that is profitable, leverage it as much and as fast as you can, because someone else is going to find the same thing and milk the cash cow dry.

A Kelly or kelly-like approach is about making optimum bets, not safe bets.

If you get 'greedy' in any market environment and wager a greater percentage of your bankroll than the wager calls, you are headed for ruin. There's no way around it. Eventually it will ruin or crush your bankroll.

I'm honestly surprised to see serious debate on topics like wager-size. Some things appear to me to have "right or wrong" answers, lying outside of the realm of the subjective.

With any kind of serious horse race wagering you want a bet-size that is:
1. A percent of your bankroll, so that you grow exponentially.
2. Low enough to minimize risk of ruin.
3. High enough that you aren't needlessly leaving a lot of money on the table.

However, if you are gambling, it doesn't really matter, and some of the betting systems can be fun, and even provide a short term profit with a little good fortune.