Betting Examples Discussion

[Bill V.]

As often as I can I would like to post up some recent
Hit or Miss or what can be harmful betting stratagies, that i have seen posted
This is not to condem anyones success or failure
Just like in the follow up No names will be shown
Just what works and hopfully by showing bets
It will help us all LEARN TO WIN

[Bill V.]

This is an example of a very popular bet here in the contest
The $25 W/P bet on 2 horses

In a recent posting using this bet the poster won and got $190
or a $90 profit
27923

His bets were a horse with off odds of 9/2 and lets go with the ML of 10/1

Here are 4 looks at his bet using different methods

27924

AAA is the actual bet and return on his bets
The 5 horse won and paid $11.00 and $4.80
The favorite @ 6/5 placed and paid $3.30
BBB is what his return would have been on a 50/50 Win only bet
CCC is what his return would have been on a 60/40 win bet
DDD is what his return would have been on a Sartin guidline bet
of a back up place bet on a high odds horse
EEE This again using a back up place bet with slightly higher than the win bet place bet

The total return for these bets is to the far right

[pktruckdriver]

Very well done Bill, but I just get from this , is that if you bet WIN only, yu will get much much more, for your buck. The other option is playing the place horse, but should be played only when the odds are high enough to make the place bet a nice payoff, and not be used on a 6/5 horse, is this what you are saying?

I make my bets and then go , most of the time, and come back and see how I did, and with odds at 3-1 , I hope they go up, but sometimes they go down, mostly go down, as I try to put the horse who has the best chance of winning, which we know could be a no paying horse, yet my reasoning, for my 25 w/p, was two things, basically....

1 Would be able to hit with 2 horses in 1 play.

2. If my higher odds horse comes 2nd then I stand a good chance of
breaking even on my wager, if possible. Or that was the thought, originally

Maybe next month I can try 2 50.00 win wagers, as quite a few people suggested, as this does make the handicapping a little bit tougher and then the hit rate would be more in tune to how Doc meant a 20 race cycle to be.


Patrick

[gandalf380]

Nicely done, Bill. I think CCC is the way to go if one is to follow Sartin guidelines. One thing to keep in mind is that Howard was not always interested in maximum profit. By that I mean he was very aware of the psychological impact of losing and was the reason he recommended betting two horses to win. One of the reasons for betting the AAA method in this contest is to maximize the number of winning bets and thusly maximize the winning percentage.

[Bill V.]

I understand about having little time and having to post races and then move on
with your schedule. There was a very good wagercaper/ client from England
He was featured often in the follow ups name Tim Brothers
He had no other choice ( back then ) then to bet off the morning line
I doubt that would work in todays internet and AWD late money plungers world.
Your hands are tied but I think all thing considered you do very well

Bill

[Bill V.]

Hello gandalph

CCC is a very good method. I feel that people who use the CCC method
thend to be very good handicappers who are very confident in there desisions.
They also want to maximize thier profits, These types and 1 horse betters are probably similar in ability.
CCC types still have a safety, that back up plan

As far as betting differently than you do in your daily wagering
That a individules decision . My felling is why would you think a $200 prize trumps
how you bet everyday Don't you want to win all the time ?

GS
Bill

[Bill V.]

Lets look at those Extra $20 Place bets

There might be a mistake in some peoples mind that I am scoring based on your hit rate. This is not true. Your score is ranked by the NetScore which in the contest is your bankroll x your hit rate. If this was the type of contest were you always have a starting bank win or lose like the $200 per day Paceadvantage pick 4 contest Then I can see were hits would be a plus
If you only got what you won
going for the hit rate idea would work.
However that is not the case. In this contest you are winning and missing
every race. when you bet $100 and win $50 you still lose $50 on your bankroll

Lets look at a pattern I often see people make

Here is my score as I start the day I am doing alright I have a small profit
in my bank roll
***
27983
Now today I decide I want to bet two horses $50- $50. My two horses are close in odds between 5/2 and 9/2 .
Lets say I think that my hit rate is important so I decide to add a $20 place bet to the higher odds horse
After all I want that hit .
So I make my bet $40 Win / $40 win and then $20 place the 9/2 horse

A non contender wins the race but the $20 place bet comes in and pays
$5.00 I get my hit but I still lose $50 on my bankroll

Lets look at how this changes my score
27984

My bankroll went down $50 my hit rate went up .18% but my net score only went up about $2.00

This WIN to the ego really was a loss in the bank roll
If your going to use the place pools Its important that you bet enough
to offset the lower payouts or else you will show no profit even when you think you win

GS
Bill

[rmath]

I feel you are missing one point Bill.
Regardlees of your final bankroll If you hit 50% you get a free month of RDSS.
Since no money is actually changing hands when we place our bets I for one am not worried about anything but my final %.
Many of my contest bets have been on races that I would normally not bet anyway because of low odds.
rmath

[Bill V.]

I feel you are missing one point Bill.
Regardlees of your final bankroll If you hit 50% you get a free month of RDSS.
Since no money is actually changing hands when we place our bets I for one am not worried about anything but my final %.
Many of my contest bets have been on races that I would normally not bet anyway because of low odds.
rmath

I'm glad you "earned" your 1 month rdss extension
I thought we we trying to get more than that out of the contest

GS
Bill

[rmath]

Bill, I agree that the purpose of the contest is to become better handicappers,and that is my goal also.
There are several prizes up for grabs each month and I am sure each one of us is trying to win the top prize, but only one can claim that elusive spot.
My goal each month is to do the best that I can and if at some point I see that I cannot win, then I set my goal on winning one of the other prizes.
This month I realized that the only prize I could possibly win was a free month of RDSS. If this makes me a BAD handicapper, then I am sorry and if you do not want me to enter next month please let me know.
I have always tried to share all my findings with everyone so as to help others become better handicappers.
My point in the previous post was probably worded wrongly, and if so I apologize.
I wish you and all the contestants best of luck.

[Bill V.]

N0 need to apologize
There are no rules that say you did anything wrong. You can do what ever you feel is important to your own growth and ego.

Any examples shown are random. I was not calling anybody out. Some people, lurking in the back ground said they were interested, and support
looking at this issue.

I think I have opened some eyes and I say again that everybody can do what ever they want.

Thanks
Bill

[pktruckdriver]

N0 need to apologize
There are no rules that say you did anything wrong. You can do what ever you feel is important to your own growth and ego.

Any examples shown are random. I was not calling anybody out. Some people, lurking in the back ground said they were interested, and support
looking at this issue.

I think I have opened some eyes and I say again that everybody can do what ever they want.

Thanks
Bill

Well, I understand rmath's point, once he saw he could not win , then to try to get a free month by going 50%, makes sense, but you original post pointed out to me at least, how my 25 w/p wagering stands no chance of evr winning this contest, unless are my plays are 8-1 or higher, and they are not.

Now this month I will finish as I started 25 w/p, but next month use a few variances that you pointed out , and hopefully my ROI will be higher, not my score, but my ROI, and of course my score too.

CCC looked good to try, 50 win and 20/30 w/p as 2nd horse with higher odds and helps me keep the hit rate up, and when this gets to a certain point, then I need to get my 20 race cycle, on win bets only, maybe.

I always thought that eventually I could get to where I could win bet 1 horse and place bet another and still get above 50%, yet waitning on win bets m/l 3-1 or higher as 7/2 may be tougher to wait for, we'll see.

But this is fun so far and watching what others do and seeing there pacelines are helpful, that to me is what the contest is all about.

patrick

[Ted Craven]

Dick,

A couple of thoughts:

Although you have reached 20 races played, your contest for July is not even half over yet, if you want to continue. You can work as many races as you feel like, and the last 20 races are used to score your performance in the Contest (a new rule for July). So although you have achieved a .500 hit rate in the first 20, and indeed do win a 1 month RDSS subscription extension prize if you stop now, you may go on to significantly improve your Bankroll and possibly your hit ratio and qualify for the top prizes. I invite you to do just that!

As Bill points out, you have indeed played your contest completely as provided in the Contest Rules, no worries. However, I fear that adopting a Contest wagering strategy which tends to aim for maintaining Hit Rate at the expense of Bankroll growth is NOT what we want this Contest to appear to enable. The very title of the contest is 'Learn to Win' not Learn to Place.

I maintain that Place betting has an important role in both evening out runs of Losses and taking money out of the race where the Place pool is where there is overlaid value.

But a betting strategy which would only succeed in the 'contest world' but not in the real world is not one we really want to teach people, or represent that this is what the Sartin Methodology embraces. There are a lot of people looking on this Contest even if they are not playing yet, and some of them are trying to figure out if the software and wagering recommendations promoted here (e.g. multi-horse or multi-pool wagering) are worthy.

Let's show them all the tools the Methodology has to offer! You have hit .500 of all your bets and almost broke even after 20 races, which is about what I did last month and I won a prize for it! Please keep up the good work and keep on going for the Top prize. As Gfnut showed us all last month, it only takes 1 or 2 nice Win mutuels to rocket to the top - well within your abilities with your eyes closed, IMO!

Good luck, and good skill going forward!

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Well, I understand rmath's point, once he saw he could not win , then to try to get a free month by going 50%, makes sense, but you original post pointed out to me at least, how my 25 w/p wagering stands no chance of evr winning this contest, unless are my plays are 8-1 or higher, and they are not.

Now this month I will finish as I started 25 w/p, but next month use a few variances that you pointed out , and hopefully my ROI will be higher, not my score, but my ROI, and of course my score too.

CCC looked good to try, 50 win and 20/30 w/p as 2nd horse with higher odds and helps me keep the hit rate up, and when this gets to a certain point, then I need to get my 20 race cycle, on win bets only, maybe.

I always thought that eventually I could get to where I could win bet 1 horse and place bet another and still get above 50%, yet waitning on win bets m/l 3-1 or higher as 7/2 may be tougher to wait for, we'll see.

But this is fun so far and watching what others do and seeing there pacelines are helpful, that to me is what the contest is all about.

patrick

Patrick,

Per my advice to rmath above, don't stop at 20 races this month. If you understand you should change your betting strategy, start today!

May I suggest that a Place bet lower than the Win bet on a horse rarely if ever makes sense. And a small lone Place bet on a 2nd horse with no corresponding Win bet is a strategy just crying out as 'not trying to make money'.

Your strategy so far of splitting your $100 4 ways over 2 horses Win/Place may make the best sense if you have no access to post time odds and must bet off the Morning Line and your analysis screens. In real-time, I'm sure that many of those less than $7.00 mutuels you have hit (and you've had quite a few!) you would never have split your bet to the Place pool - you would have put that $25 to Place in the Win pool and gotten a much better mutuel for it.

My research of your betting (through Wednesday) shows that you only got 2 Place wagers on horses which did not win, and those for $6.20 and $3.80 to Place. All of the other bets you HIT, you hit in the Win pool, so if ALL your wagers were in the Win pool and NONE in the Place pool, you would be significantly ahead in Bankroll, with only 2 more losses (through Wednesday).

If you permit, I will post your Contest spreadsheet here with that analysis, as an example of how you - or anyone - could improve their Bankroll AND Final Score (i.e. after Hit Rate %) by angling more toward the Win pool, and only selectively in the Place pool.

We could enact rule changes for August to prevent some less-than-optimal Place pool betting strategies - BUT, I am inclined to suggest education and feedback of one's racing records - i.e. consequences of actions taken - as the better way. And the way adopted by 'mother nature' in the real pari-mutel world out there, which is where we are really playing this game.

That said Patrick, for not having access to real-time odds, you are doing remarkably well after only 8 races.

Keep up the good work (and don't let the 'doubters' elsewhere have a whit of influence on you ;))

Ted

[pktruckdriver]

Permission Granted Ted, and many thanks for it too.

Patrick

[rmath]

Ted, Yes I thought about playing more races, but as soon as I play one more horse my bankroll would be reduced by 792.50, the net proceeds from my first winner. I felt that this would put me in serious hole and I felt that it would be nearly impossible to overcome the deficit.
Hope you see my dilema, and any suggestions would be appreciated.
rmath

[Ted Craven]

Ted, Yes I thought about playing more races, but as soon as I play one more horse my bankroll would be reduced by 792.50, the net proceeds from my first winner. I felt that this would put me in serious hole and I felt that it would be nearly impossible to overcome the deficit.
Hope you see my dilema, and any suggestions would be appreciated.
rmath

I do see your dilemma! How about conducting this 'thought experiment': pretend that you are beginning August's contest today and have 15 days to bet another 20 races. I'm sure you would never consider 'I should not play in the August contest because I'll never hit another $23.80 Win mutuel like I did the first play in July' :) Rather, consider that the slate is 'clean' and start again.

That's the worst case. The better case is that you go forward and actually hit several double digit mutuels, perhaps in less than another 20 races. Several people have done precisely that and naturally so can you, with your degree of skill. Look at Gfnut the final day of the June Contest, who hit mutuels of $17.20, $22.60 and $19.60 with Win bets on each - $1195 profits in one day - at Hollywood. Look at Barb Craven yesterday at WO with a $19.40 Win mutuel, though alas only a $5.70 Place mutuel :(). These good hits do happen, as can a string of simply random distribution of racing outcomes which allocates a bunch of Losses in a row your way. For both the foregoing reasons, playing onward makes great sense - just like it would in real life: after a bad day, we regroup and move forward with confidence in our long term ability - and things even out as your long term records show.

Consider another 'thought experiment' at the same time as the one above: pretend that your 1 month RDSS subscription prize is not in jeopardy - pretend it has been won and cannot be lost regardless of what happens over the rest of July. With the risk of losing that removed, how does this change your confidence level?

My only other suggestion going forward is - pay no attention to betting simply to obtain a good hit rate, i.e. making small Place bets which pay little or even lose money over all. Consider restricting Place betting to top contenders going off at odds greater than 7-1, and THEN making any Place bet the same size or greater than your Win bet on that horse.

The Contest is not about Place betting at all, but we have to keep the betting structures simple enough to score easily and not result in runaway winners from boxcar exotic hits. I believe that simple Win and Place betting (where prudent) form the foundation of all other good betting practices, and this is what I want to help teach people - with your assistance!

Best of luck and skill going forward, my friend.

yours,

Ted

[For The Lead]

Consider restricting Place betting to top contenders going off at odds greater than 7-1, and THEN making any Place bet the same size or greater than your Win bet on that horse.

Ted

As you can see above, Ted suggested betting “place” on horses going off at odds of 7/1 or greater, so that is where I started.

I took 2 consecutive years and counted how many horses went off at odds of 7/1 or greater. There were 369,123.
Then I counted how many of those horses won. That number was 17,005.
Then I counted how many of those horses “placed”, but DID NOT WIN. There were 26,277.
Then I calculated the “place price” for those horses that either won or placed. It came to $11.76
Then I calculated the “win price” for those horses that won. It came to $31.23.

Ok, so what does all this mean?

Of the total number of horses that went off at odds of 7/1 or higher, 7.12% of those horses ran 2nd.

Of the total number of horses that went off at odds of 7/1 or higher, 4.61% of those horses WON.

If you bet $2 “to place” on every horse that went off at odds of 7/1 or higher, you would have LOST $429,128.

If you bet $2 “to WIN” on every horse that went off at odds of 7/1 or higher, you would have LOST $207,179.

As you can see, betting to place returns a "hit rate" of 7.12 %
Betting to win returns a "hit rate" of 4.61%.....not a big difference. Why?

Because horses going off at these odds do not run “in the money” at a high rate. In most cases they either win or run out of the money. There are a few, as you can see, that do run 2nd without winning, but you have to ask yourself, "is it worth it?”

Where the difference really shows up is in the overall return.
Betting these horses "to place" returns a loss of $429,179
Betting the same horses "to win" returns a loss of $207,129….less than half the loss of just betting to place.

When it comes to betting win,place or show, there is no better bet than "WIN". Your "hit rate" may not be as high, but the "return rate" more than makes up for it!

Personally, I don't bet a horse unless it goes off at odds of 4/1 or higher and like everyone else, I see my share of horses that run 2nd, however, being aware of what I have explained here, I ONLY BET TO WIN.

I hope and trust that this will be of value to all those who take the time to read it.

[rmath]

What was the actual number of races in your study?
Just curious.

[Bill V.]

Thank you.

If its possible, If you don't mind would it be asking too much to do the same analysis with horses that went off at 4/1 and above

Only because Doc's guidelines are to back up a win bet on horses that will pay
over $10 with a place bet


thanks
Bill

[For The Lead]

What was the actual number of races in your study?
Just curious.

82,985 total races were used in this survey.

I could have used 10 times that amount, but to no end. In all of my research, I have found that two years is enough to reach a stable and reliable number.

[Bill V.]

Who won ? here is a little quiz

Two races just came in for selectors one afternoon
with a few minutes of each other. Both people had nice 5/2 winners.
Both bet two horses to win

AAA Bet $50 win on two horses
BBB Bet $30 win and $20 place on one of the selections
Both bet two horses per race
Both bet $100 in the race

AAA got a win and the winner paid $7.60
BBB got a win and place bet. The winner paid $7.90 and $4.20

Who made more money ???

answer below
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Answer is AAA although the price was lower the profit in the race was $90
BBB got the back up place bet hit but still the profit for the race was only $60.50

Next I even turned around the bet and made BBB's bet $20 w and $30 p
and all that did was reduce the profit to S42.00

28066

I would never thought that BBB would make less, How about you ?

[For The Lead]

Thank you.

If its possible, If you don't mind would it be asking too much to do the same analysis with horses that went off at 4/1 and above

Only because Doc's guidelines are to back up a win bet on horses that will pay
over $10 with a place bet


thanks
Bill

Hello Bill,

I hope you don't mind if I change your request slightly.
Instead of running the whole thing all over again starting with 4/1 and higher, and since the results of 7/1 or higher are already posted, I thought it might be more informative if I did 4/1 to 4.99/1 as a group, 5/1 to 5.99/1 as a group and lastly, 6/1 to 6.99/1 as a group. Here are the results.


I used the same 82,985 races.

In the 4.0/1 to 4.99/1 trial, there were a total of 47.704 horses that fell into this group.
Of those 47,704 horses;
7,778 of them “placed”. This represents 16.30% of the total group.
7,148 of them “won”. This represents 14.98% of the total group.
This is a total of 14,926 possible place bets won. This represents 31.28% of the total group.
Notice that 52.11% placed and DID NOT WIN, while 47.89% WON.
The average win price was $10.82
The average place price was $5.24

Betting $2 to “place” on every horse in the group comes to $95,408.
Total “place” bets won (including horses that won) comes to $78,212. A loss of $17,196.
Betting $2 to “win” on every horse in the group comes to $95,408.
Total “win” bets won comes to $77,341. A loss of $18,067.

Notice that at this range of odds, it is almost 50-50 win to place. The lower the odds, the better the chance of the horse running second.

On to the group of 5.0/1 to 5.99/1.
_____________________________________________________________
In the 5.0/1 to 5.99/1 trial, there were a total of 38,840 horses that fell into this group.
Of those 38,840 horses;
5,930 of them “placed”. This represents 15.27% of the total group.
4,836 of them “won”. This represents 12.458% of the total group.
This is a total of 10,763 possible place bets won. This represents 27.71% of the total group. Notice the decline from the previous group.
Notice that 55.10% placed and DID NOT WIN, while 44.93% WON.
The average win price was $12.83
The average place price was $5.74

Betting $2 to “place” on every horse in the group comes to $77,680.
Total “place” bets won (including horses that won) comes to $61,780. A loss of $15,900.
Betting $2 to “win” on every horse in the group comes to $77,680.
Total “win” bets won comes to $62,046. A loss of $15,634.

Notice that increasing the odds just one full point, betting to win, although still a loss, is LESS of a loss than betting to place, even though the win% in this group is lower than the previous group.

On to the 6.0/1 to 6.99/1 group.
____________________________________________________________
In the 6.0/1 to 6.99/1 trial, there were a total of 33,320 horses that fell into this group.
Of those 33,320 horses;
4,441 of them “placed”. This represents 13.33% of the total group.
3,506 of them “won”. This represents 10.52% of the total group.
This is a total of 7,947 possible place bets won. This represents 23.85% of the total group. Notice the decline from the previous two groups.
Notice that 55.88% placed and DID NOT WIN, while 44.12% WON.
The average win price was $14.83
The average place price was $6.40

Betting $2 to “place” on every horse in the group comes to $66,640.
Total “place” bets won (including horses that won) comes to $50836. A loss of $15,804.
Betting $2 to “win” on every horse in the group comes to $66,640.
Total “win” bets won comes to $51,994. A loss of $14,646.

Notice that increasing the odds just one full point again, betting to win, although still a loss, is LESS of a loss than betting to place, even though the win% in this group is lower than the previous group.

Let’s look at the average win/place prices for each group.

4/1 to 4.99/1 = win/$10.82 – place/$5.24 (difference between win and place = $5.58)

5/1 to 5.99/1 = win/$12.83 – place/$5.74 (difference between win and place = $7.09)

6/1 to 6.99/1 = win/$14.83 – place/$6.40 (difference between win and place = $8.43)

Notice that although we are only increasing the odds 1 full point at a time, there is a big difference between win and place prices as we move up the odds ladder. This becomes even more pronounced as the odds get higher.

[For The Lead]

If there is one thing you should take away from the information I have posted here, it is this.

Although you may "feel better" when you cash that place ticket on a horse that runs second, "IN THE LONG RUN" you are only costing yourself money!

There are only two situations where betting to place is better than betting to win.

Situation #1
You bet an entry and the entry runs first and second.
In most cases, the entry will pay more to place than it does to win. This is because the place pool is paid to one betting interest rather than to two betting interests.

Situation #2
There is a favorite in the race with an extra ordinary amount of money bet to place and show on it and it runs out of the money.
In these cases not only is the place pool more profitable, but in some cases the show pool can be the most profitable.

Just one thing.
Let me know in advance when you find one of these spots! :D

[rmath]

Thanks for the info. I always enjoy looking over your stats.
They are always very eye opening.

Bills post on betting are great, too.

Thanks to both of you.rmath

[JIMBOB1002]

I agree with rmath this is all very helpful.Thanks

[Bill V.]

Rmath and Jimbob I am glad your finding this helpful.

FTL Yes I hit your PLUS senerio #1 It has always been a spot play for me.

As you wrote, in the earlier post the place price was almost the same as the win price

I want to see if my method of adding a place bet on horses over 4/1
as is Doc's guidelines is a positive way to bet

I ran four lines on the spreadsheet, Using my two betting selections # 1 and 7

28089

These 4 lines are choices I had
Note : I used the average place price of $5.20 since its more likely that the entry will not run 1-2 I derived this figure from the data you posted
yesterday on the stats of place prices for horse 4/1 to 4.99/1

AAA is if I had bet $50 win on both the 1 and the 7 - Win return $275
BBB is if I had bet $60/$40 on the low odds 7 and high odds 1 = $220
CCC My actual bet $40 win on the 7, $25 win $35 place on the 1 = $228.50
DDD same amounts but with more on the win than place # 1 = $257.50
EEE is the always popular $25 win/place bet on the #1 and #7 = $202.50
**
Method AAA is the best profit maker
I used method CCC however method DDD pays better and I do get the
insurance against long losing runs. I use these and it seems to support Doc's other guideline of always bet in a way were you never fall too far behind.

thoughts ?
Bill

[Ted Craven]

I suspect that the same rationale, and indeed statistics, which 'prove' that it is more profitable to forego all Place betting in favour of the Win pool, would also prove that it is also more profitable - in the long term - to bet only 1 horse per race, to Win.

I think Howard Sartin discovered a psychological truth a long time ago, and I have discovered in my own betting practice over 20 years: that most people do NOT bet in the world of statistics or in a comforting hypothetical world where every choice is couched in knowing where the next event fits in the pantheon of the last 10,000 or 100,000 events.

They SHOULD know and bet into the truth of these large numbers and general statistics about wagering pools - BUT, unless you are betting with a robot and going for bulk (and are well capitalized) - MOST of us must deal with the EMOTION of every next bet, even if we are Walter White. The truth for MOST of us is that we receive feedback from the result of every bet - win or lose - in neuro-chemicals and emotional stimuli which usually has at least some effect on the next bet. Perhaps not ALL of us, but likely MOST of us.

And that is why MOST people will likely be negatively affected by losing 7 out of 10 races (i.e. betting one horse, or one pool, per race). Of course, it IS possible to train yourself, by record keeping and by repeated positive experience to be unaffected by such a scenario, but the reason for 2 horse betting (or multiple interest/pool betting) is to limit the expected series of Losses and to limit the negative effect on our handicapping/wagering discipline by enjoying a higher hit rate, say ~.50% or perhaps > 66% when including judicious Place betting, or Exacta dutching/hedging.

You would not (could not) drive your car without insurance. Consider 2 horse Win betting and judicious Place betting as a form of insurance against psychologically crashing, a support tool for mental health. While participating in the ongoing game, and anteing up each race to see if your qualified longshot, or mid-priced horse, or 3rd tier BLBL, etc will indeed pay handsomely this time, surging your bankroll ahead, you need to use all your resources to make sure you are indeed still in the game, and have not checked out too soon for mental recuperation or bankroll repair because you got the 'wobblies' after one too many well priced horses finished 2nd without your bet!

Howard Sartin advised taking perhaps smaller profits here and there, from whatever pools offered opportunity, and staying as close to breakeven in a 20 race cycle waiting for the price horses to come along - rather than swinging for the fences. Of course, nothing prevents any of us from swinging for the fences, in any pool, but I believe, at least for myself, that taking many small wins plus my share of larger ones is the correct strategy for me, and perhaps for many.

It is cheaper to drive without insurance, just as it may be more profitable in the long run to never backup longer priced horses to Place or bet 2 horses to Win. But in order to make it to the long run, we first have to make it through the short run.

I don't care whether my net 2-1 or 1-1 odds in any winning wager comes from betting 1 horse to win, 2 horses to win, 1 horse to Win and another long priced horse dutched to Win/Place, or a dutched 4-horse matrix of exacta bets (boxes and wheels). The only thing that matters to me is how much I win, net, out of any wager regardless of the pool(s) from which the money comes. I HATE to lose my entire bet! I am often happy to hedge my bet in order to breakeven or even lose a little on a legitimate looking favourite, when a good 3rd tier or well ranked VDC horse or lone Early is paying boxcars and I have money left in my betting unit to Win and/or Place on that one (hedging being another form of insurance).

No disrespect in the least intended to For the Lead and his valuable statistics, which we all MUST be aware of. But this discussion on Betting Strategies MUST also take into account at its foundation, the emotional nature of risk-taking and betting.

I'd like to hear further takes, or interesting rebuttals of this proposition!

cheers,

Ted

[JimG]

I think the need to win a race is why most people with sound handicapping principles lose long term. The takeout and rebates are such that good short price horses really get pounded in the win pool. Heck, so so horses that should be 3-1 are now bet down to 8-5 or so. For most people, I feel that if they cannot overcome the stress of losing several races in a row, they stand little chance to be long term winners.

Reachable rebates for the average player have driven down the prices of logical horses even further. My sweet spot for win bets is in the 7/2 to 6-1 range, however I am never swayed against a horse I like if say it is 30-1 or greater. I have to stay out of many races due to the lower odds of logical horses in the win pool compared to say 1990.

Everybody has their own comfort zone for sure. I am not comfortable betting horses at 2-1 or less. My way is not the only way, but it is what works for me. Overcoming psychological barriers is very difficult but years of losing trying to win a race as opposed to winning at the races forced me to change my mindset.

Jim

[For The Lead]

Good post by Ted. I understand his points right down the line, but I'm going to try and further my position anyway. It gets lengthy and may seem off topic, but hang in there, I think you'll get my meaning.

The first thing I would like to discuss is “insurance”.

In the average person’s life the purchase of their home is the biggest investment they will make, naturally, insuring that investment makes a lot of sense.
The next biggest investment the average person makes is the purchase of a car. Again, it makes sense to insure that investment.
In both of the above cases, not only are you insuring the investments themselves, but you are also insuring (protecting) yourself from liability claims due to your negligence that could ruin your life financially and cost you everything you own.

Now let’s talk about something else that is called “insurance”. Any of you that have ever played blackjack in a casino know that right there on the blackjack table layout it says “INSURANCE”. Is this the same type of insurance I just talked about? NO! But the casino would like you to think about it that way.

Let’s say you bet $10 on your hand and the dealer’s up card is an ACE. The dealer will ask you if you would like to take insurance. If you say “yes”, then you must make an additional $5 bet. When the dealer checks their hole card, if they have blackjack they will show you their hand and take your initial $10 bet. However, they will then pay you $10 for your “insurance bet” of $5, because the insurance bet pays 2/1. Of course, if they do not have blackjack, you lose the insurance bet and can still lose the original bet on your hand or, you can win your original $10 bet on your hand and lose the insurance bet and instead of winning $10 from your original bet, you end up only winning $5 because you lost that additional insurance bet of $5.

Now lets’ say you are dealt blackjack and the dealer shows an ACE. The dealer will ask you if you want “even money”. Why? When you win by being dealt a blackjack, the normal payoff you receive is 1.5/1. So if you had bet $10 on your hand, you would receive a payoff of $15, which is your bet times 1.5. Now, if you do not take insurance with your blackjack hand and the dealer has a blackjack, you will “tie” and break even. So most people will “insure” their blackjack and take even money. This is less painful than going through the procedure of taking your original bet and then paying you on the “insurance” bet, they just pay you even money. But if the dealer doesn't have blackjack, you just lose another separate bet! So is this insurance bet a good bet? Why wouldn’t it be? You are guarantying yourself a winning hand, right? On the face of it, yes, but let’s take a closer look.

The first thing you have to understand is this, by making the so called insurance bet, you ARE NOT INSURING ANYTHING!! You are simply making another separate bet, which is, the dealer either does or does not have blackjack. It is that simple.
Now unlike horse racing and handicapping, blackjack is a precisely mathematical game. So, since the so called “insurance bet” pays 2/1, do you think you should make that bet if the true odds of the dealer having a blackjack is 3/1 or 4/1 or higher? NO! Why would you make a bet and receive 2/1 on your bet if the true odds are greater than that?
But suppose I told you the true odds of the dealer having a blackjack is 1/1. Would that be a better bet? YES! Because the chances of the dealer having a blackjack is 1/1 and the casino is going to pay you 2/1.
The main point here is this. The bet on your hand cannot be insured. What the casino wants you to think of as "insurance" is nothing more than a separate bet on whether or not the dealer has blackjack. They are two separate and individual bets. One has nothing to do with the other.

I’m getting there, but first a little background.

I started betting horses in the mid 1960’s. At that time the ONLY BETS available were a Daily Double, Win, Place and Show. THAT WAS IT! Naturally, the only way to make any substantial money was by betting to “win” and so that is what you learned to do, pick the horse you thought would win the race and bet it “to win”.
Now don’t think there weren’t other betting schemes around, there were. Take as an example the idea of betting $2 to win, $4 to place and $12 to show, a total bet of $18. The idea here was that if you horse only ran 3rd and paid $3.00 you would break even. I guess this may have been the “insurance bet” of the day. I prefer to call it a betting scheme designed to “not lose”, rather than “to win”. Naturally, those that applied this betting scheme went broke! Try recapturing $36 after two of these bets ran out of the money. Good luck with that when you are only betting $2 to win! And take into consideration, the longer the odds on a horse, the less chance there is of the horse running in the money. Favorites only run in the money approximately 67% of the time.

When you bet a horse to win and then make a place bet as “insurance” or if you make an exacta bet as “insurance" or any number of other bets as “insurance”, YOU ARE NOT INSURING ANYTHING!!!
All you are doing is making several separate and individual bets. The bets must stand on their own in order for you to win, meaning, you must be able to make a profit on each of these individual bets, otherwise you will lose money. Ask yourself this. Would a retailer continue to carry a particular line in his store if he was losing money on it? I doubt it. So why would you continue to make a certain bet if you cannot make money on it?
Betting “to win only” is betting to win...IF you are good enough.
Betting “to place only” is betting to win…IF you are good enough.
Betting “exactas only” is betting to win…IF you are good enough.
This is true for any of the other bets that are available.
But mixing these bets is NOT INSURANCE! You are either good enough to win at each type of bet or you are not!
If you make all of these various bets in the same race and cannot show a profit on each of them, you are taking a shot at betting in an effort NOT TO LOSE…RATHER THAN TO WIN!

Lastly, and giving credit where credit is due, ‘Doc” offered people an opportunity to avoid long losing streaks by betting TWO HORSES TO WIN in each race. Good contender selection and good line selection are the basics of achieving the goal of 60% to 70% winners and a good ROI in a 20 race cycle.

Personally, I think the contest being offered is a great way to hone your skills…FOR FREE!
If you are not already winning 60% to 70% of your “WIN BETS” in a 20 race cycle, betting two horses per race, then here is your chance to improve and it costs you NOTHING!

I see contest bets like $80 to win on horse A and $10 to place on horse A and B. What kind of bets are those?
Just about everyone in the contest bets to win and place. WHY? Is this to say there is a “value place bet” in every race and that you are good enough to win enough of these place bets to show a profit?
Just bet TO WIN!
Improve your game to the point where you are winning 12 to 14 races out of 20!
Does it matter if you only win 8 or 10? NO. It’s FREE!
Take the contest seriously and bet the way you should bet in order to LEARN and IMPROVE YOUR GAME!
Even if you are only winning 8 to 10 bets out of 20, I don’t think losing 10 to 12 bets out of 20 is mind altering.
And if you are playing the methodology correctly, that is, playing the right horses with good odds, even winning just 8 races out of 20 isn’t going to take your whole bankroll.

[Bill V.]

So now we see different points of view Every one makes good points

Now its up to each person to look at the reflexion in the mirror
and ask yourself Do I truly want to win of do I not want somebody to get mad at me. Do you need insurance ? I do and without insurance their is disaster

Each of us

We must realize that no matter how much you want to be like FTL or anybody else It's not going to happen 100%
We each function with various physical emotional and mental ability. We each have our on ideas of success. We all can tolerate different levels of love/hate pain/pleasure work/play Not only that but we all have outside conflicts with family work and disposable income, lack of self esteem or physical handicaps that limit our own ability to wager in FTL's world. Of all the elements that effect our own abilities I feel the one that hurts us the most is indecision. One horse win only betters have a ability to isolate and make a decision on one horse and then decide if that one horse meets their acceptable odds minimum I feel there strength is not that they are better handicappers, Its that they have a better mental and physical ability to make decisions.

Rules

FTL offers a cold hard fact based point of view. But we do have the ability to win based on our own levels of confidence and decision making. There are no rules, FTL's betting rules would be appreciable if everybody had to bet the same races every day. Then those who bet correctly
in a group event would do better than 2 win or win/place betters In the learn to win contest and In the real world there are no assigned races. Does it really matter if only a very small percentage of 7/1 horses win in ALL races, if your program and your decision making says THIS 7/1 horse in THIS MATCH UP has a very good chance and if somehow the your OTHER win bet wins you can still make a very good profit with a back up place bet That to me is insurance By Insurance we mean the ability to compensate for our decision making ability.
So there really is no need for anybody to tell you how you should bet. You make the decision of the race, the odds. your readouts, THE MATCH UP of these condenders You don't need to handicap when your busy or when your wife is upset or you just don't feel well.

Constancy.

Nobody I have observed in all the years I have been here on pace and cap or all the years I have spent watching and learning from at the track is 100 % cold hard facts consistent. People make claims to be consistent but,nobody I know bets the same way in the real world every time. If you do you are in a very small minority and your in that minority because you made the decision to be. No one forced you to be what you are, why force people to do it your way.

There is only 1 out of about 20 people in the contest who is a 1 horse better Because of the real world race/.life elements
people are constantly looking at each race and deciding how is the best way to attck each race. I see positve ROI's there are no facts that can over ride real life betting If you doubt this take a look at the last month and of half of the learn to win contest look how often people change there betting methods
Why is this ?

Betting

Are people making unwise bets? Yes I agree, I don't see much sence in a $80 win bet and 2 $10 place bets
Thats were these discussions have value But to flat out say don't make win and place bets together is not in my opinion your right.
or a good approch for everybody. All you may end up doing is dscourage those who's ability and growth are not fully developed.
Let the seedlings grow and encourage wins and profit in a 20 race cyle. Than slowly fine tone peoples ability and decision making

Improvers

Take a look at the final standings of the June contest Better yet first look at the June 15th contest standings.
Notice how many people are doing better today then they did on June 15th or July 1st To me That's the true value of the Learn To Win Contest Its because many different methods are being presented
and its also because doing real races ahead of time is the real world
Lets show people things they can relate to and focus their decision making abilties on Stats and rules are good
but lets fine tune with real racing

It is what we do.


Bill

[For The Lead]

You didn’t get my point regarding “insurance bets”. These “insurance bets” are not insurance bets, but rather, “hedge bets” or “saver bets”. They are separate and individual bets made in an effort to cover your basic “win bet”. If you want to “win”, then you make the bets that show you a profit and you don’t make the bets that don’t show you a profit. Once you know which bets make you a profit, then you have to decide which bets will return the largest profit. From there you have to decide to keep your betting strategy the way it is or move on to a wagering strategy the offers maximum profits.

I don’t think anyone is trying to be like me. And what I write here certainly doesn’t reflect how I actually play. I simply write what I feel is the best way to learn and to profit from the methodology, while providing helpful bits of information.

Again, when I write about splitting bets in a 60%/40% manner and trying to achieve a 60% to 70% (OR 12 to 14 wins in a 20 race cycle), these ARE NOT my betting rules. “Doc” made those goals, not me. I’m simply reinforcing his ideas that turned his original group of chronic losers into winners, not to mention the many clients he had that came later.
And again, this is NOT how I go about my business in actual play. To suggest that I want everyone to play as I do is just wrong.

Also, what you characterize as “my rules” would NOT serve people well in a contest where everyone played the same races. In fact, the beauty of the current “Learn To Win” contest is the fact that each player can choose his own race(s) to play, thereby giving the player the freedom to pick and choose rather than be confined to the same race(s) as everyone else.

You are correct about the small percentage of 7/1 horses that win and that it doesn’t make any difference, if that is the horse you feel you should bet today. As I have stated many times before, my minimum acceptable odds is 4/1, so just about every play I make has a small win percentage by comparison, but it makes no difference to me if that horse appears to be the winner of the race in which I bet it.

In the beginning, “Doc” didn’t give his original group a choice. In the beginning, “Doc” didn’t give his clients a choice. “Doc” told them, “you WILL pick contenders like this. You WILL bet two horses per race. You WILL bet 60% of your bet on the low odds horse. You WILL bet 40% of your bet on the low odds horse”. And guess what? IT WORKED!! At least for those who followed his advice. I’m simply providing a refresher course on the basics of the methodology in order to give everyone a strong root that will provide future growth.

There seems to be much concern for a “safety net” in the form of some mythical insurance bet. “Doc” provided that by demanding the betting of two horses in each race…to win.
Consider this. In a 20 race cycle one would be betting a total of 40 horses…40 of them! All “Doc” was asking his clients to do is, win with 12 of those 40 horses in order to achieve a 60% win rate. “Doc” knew that with good contender selection and good line selection this was an achievable goal. He knew that once you reached this goal, you would be prepared for what may come later. As with anything else, it is always best to start at the beginning.

[Bill V.]

Here is a example
Lets say you have worked a race, you have two horses you decide are worth a bet
Again lets deal in reality. You feel both of these horses can and should win the race. but outside of a dead heat only one of them will win, in the real world and this is the key to this post, You feel they both have the same chance of winning the race

Horse AAA odds are 5/2
Horse BBB odds are 4/1

here is what will happen if you bet 60/40 or 50/50

You bet $100 into the race
Lets say you bet $60 on AAA If it wins, you will get $210
Lets say you bet $40 on BBB It it wins, you will get $200

now its the next race
again your two win contenders are:

CCC at 5/2
DDD at 4/1

You bet $100 into the race but split your bet $50/50

You bet $50 on CCC If it wins you will get $175
You bet $50 on DDD If it wins you will get $250

28192

[JimG]

Bill V.,

Aren't people that make the odd bets of $80 win one horse and $10 place on two separate horses merely trying to hit more races because of the multiplier you have built into the contest standings that stresses races hit?

Jim

[gl45]

Bill,
"People make claims to be consistent but,nobody I know bets the same way in the real world every time."
I do....... 4 horses exacta box, day in day out.

Stay well.

[For The Lead]

bill v.,

aren't people that make the odd bets of $80 win one horse and $10 place on two separate horses merely trying to hit more races because of the multiplier you have built into the contest standings that stresses races hit?

Jim


amen.

[For The Lead]

Here is a example
Lets say you have worked a race, you have two horses you decide are worth a bet
Again lets deal in reality. You feel both of these horses can and should win the race. but outside of a dead heat only one of them will win, in the real world and this is the key to this post, You feel they both have the same chance of winning the race

Horse AAA odds are 5/2
Horse BBB odds are 4/1

here is what will happen if you bet 60/40 or 50/50

You bet $100 into the race
Lets say you bet $60 on AAA If it wins, you will get $210
Lets say you bet $40 on BBB It it wins, you will get $200

now its the next race
again your two win contenders are:

CCC at 5/2
DDD at 4/1

You bet $100 into the race but split your bet $50/50

You bet $50 on CCC If it wins you will get $175
You bet $50 on DDD If it wins you will get $250

28192

The concept of betting 60% on the low odds horse and 40% on the high odds horse is valid for the following reason.
Low odds horses will win more often than high odds horses therefore you will win more of the 60% bets than you will the 40% bets. It’s just that simple. It doesn’t matter if the low odds horse is 5/2 and the high odds horse is 4/1 OR if the low odds horse is 4/1 and the high odds horse is 8/1 OR any other mix of odds.

What happens in any “one” particular race means nothing.

Beyond that, consistency is the name of the game.

It is in the player’s best interest to bet each and every race the same way.

[Bill V.]

Bill V.,

Aren't people that make the odd bets of $80 win one horse and $10 place on two separate horses merely trying to hit more races because of the multiplier you have built into the contest standings that stresses races hit?

Jim

hello Jim

You are mistaken and I hope/pray Ted backs me up on this
The contest does NOT stress races hit
We added a consistany muliplier to support the spirit of this contest,
which was to learn how to bet in real time
Often contest are won by 1 big hit, which is fine for a monetray prize found
type deal
But the real prize in this contest is that we make each and everyone of us better handicappers / NOT CONTEST WINNERS !!!

Now as I have attempted to point out before the contest is based on your
NETSCORE which is your bankroll times your hit rate
It does you no good to have a high hit rate if your bankroll is weak

As Ted and I have tried to show, look at last month gfnut nearly won
the contest that seemed all but over because he had a very profitable
last few days and his bankroll was high enough before he had his hot streak
that he not only nearly won but he showed a good ROI after his 20 race cycle
That is what we need to see.


Anyway here again is a example of reality

Here is a person in the contest ( Jon Doe )

He starts out with a Bank of 2676.50 he has a .846 hit rat his netscore is
2264.73 he is doing very well winning 11/13 races

Now u we see how his score changes if he bets $100 win on a $8.00 horse
Then $80 win on the $8.00 horse
Then $80 win $10 place $8.00 win $3.00 Place
Then if only his $10 place bet comes in


Notice how his hit rate goes up to .857 but his netscore and bankroll are
effected
mostly in the hit on the $10 place bet
28193

[Bill V.]

The concept of betting 60% on the low odds horse and 40% on the high odds horse is valid for the following reason.
Low odds horses will win more often than high odds horses therefore you will win more of the 60% bets than you will the 40% bets. It’s just that simple. It doesn’t matter if the low odds horse is 5/2 and the high odds horse is 4/1 OR if the low odds horse is 4/1 and the high odds horse is 8/1 OR any other mix of odds.

What happens in any “one” particular race means nothing.

Beyond that, consistency is the name of the game.

It is in the player’s best interest to bet each and every race the same way.

Yes I see that, I wanted to show my example because even though you will make more money if your high odds horse wins The lower the odds are for a horse the more likely it will win So the AAA BBB race is better in most cases

Thanks
FTL

Bill

[Bill V.]

Bill,
"People make claims to be consistent but,nobody I know bets the same way in the real world every time."
I do....... 4 horses exacta box, day in day out.

Stay well.

Thats true Pino
I apologize You have been very consistant over all these years
betting your 4 horse exacta boxes

GS
Bill

[Ted Craven]

Bill V.,

Aren't people that make the odd bets of $80 win one horse and $10 place on two separate horses merely trying to hit more races because of the multiplier you have built into the contest standings that stresses races hit?

Jim

Clearly. They should not do this. They will NOT end up ranked highly in the end by doing this (often) and the strategy will prove ineffective in the Contest.

At the same time, we wanted to avoid someone winning a Prize because of only a few boxcar mutuels, but otherwise a long series of losses while aiming for them (e.g. winning 3 out of 20 races). Hence the attempt to emphasize a higher hit rate.


So - what's a better alternative, while allowing Place betting (not just addressed to you, Jim, but to everyone or anyone who wants to help educate)? Please don't suggest that ALL Place bets should only count at a fraction of their face mutuel (e.g. 60%, or 33%). We want to support the real-world scenario where a legitimate Place pool bet on a horse to Place is a good way to take money out of a race where the Favourite looks legitimate and ends up paying LESS to Win than the Place horse pays to Place. (For example, see another thread from yesterday where I commented on Pktruckdrivers Place bets which ALL paid off at more than the Winner.) Or, to back up a Win bet on a longer odds contender.

And - why do we need an alternative? If it is pointed out to people that the strategy does not work except to hit 50% and qualify for a RDSS subscription extension - well, I can accept that that prize was a bad idea and discontinue it.

Sincerely, thoughts and advice please! We want to improve this Contest and make it one where people truly learn to become more effective analysts and bettors.

Thanks,

Ted

[For The Lead]

hello Jim

You are mistaken and I hope/pray Ted backs me up on this
The contest does NOT stress races hit
We added a consistany muliplier to support the spirit of this contest,
which was to learn how to bet in real time
Often contest are won by 1 big hit, which is fine for a monetray prize found
type deal
But the real prize in this contest is that we make each and everyone of us better handicappers / NOT CONTEST WINNERS !!!

Now as I have attempted to point out before the contest is based on your
NETSCORE which is your bankroll times your hit rate
It does you no good to have a high hit rate if your bankroll is weak

As Ted and I have tried to show, look at last month gfnut nearly won
the contest that seemed all but over because he had a very profitable
last few days and his bankroll was high enough before he had his hot streak
that he not only nearly won but he showed a good ROI after his 20 race cycle
That is what we need to see.


Anyway here again is a example of reality

Here is a person in the contest ( Jon Doe )

He starts out with a Bank of 2676.50 he has a .846 hit rat his netscore is
2264.73 he is doing very well winning 11/13 races

Now u we see how his score changes if he bets $100 win on a $8.00 horse
Then $80 win on the $8.00 horse
Then $80 win $10 place $8.00 win $3.00 Place
Then if only his $10 place bet comes in


Notice how his hit rate goes up to .857 but his netscore and bankroll are
effected
mostly in the hit on the $10 place bet
28193

I hope you’re not suggesting that JimG was incorrect, because he wasn’t.

You and Ted set up a good contest and assumed everyone would play the contest “in the spirit in which it was intended”. Unfortunately, the rules of the contest (and prize list) left a door open for those who decided not to play the contest in the spirit in which it was intended.

Close that door…problem resolved.

You know the old story, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
However, at least you got the horse TO the water. Then it was up to the horse.
I trust you understand my meaning.

[For The Lead]

Bill,

You like to post examples, so I thought I would post a couple examples of my own.

Let's say a guy comes into the contest that is a one horse win better.
Let's further say that the guy hits 6 winners in his 20 race cycle, a very respectable 30% hit rate (or .300).
Let's further say each winner paid $8.00, so his return, and final bankroll, is $2,400, again, a respectable 20% ROI.
When you multiply his final bankroll by the hit rate of .300, his netscore is 720.
WHAT SHOT DOES HE HAVE AT WINNING ANYTHING, even a minor prize??


Let's take it a step further.
The same guy picks 8 winners, an outstanding 40% hit rate.
Let's further say that each of the 8 winners paid $10.00.
His final bankroll stands at $4,000. And outstanding 100% ROI.
When you factor in his hit rate of .400, his netscore becomes 1600.
Again, WHAT SHOT DOES HE HAVE AT WINNING ANYTHING, even a minor prize?? No free download for him. His hit rate was below .500.


Do you still think scoring a bet where the contestant only hits a place bet the same way as a win bet is fair?

Here is a guy that would be CLEARLY the best player in the contest and the contestant from whom everyone could learn the most, and yet, he can win NOTHING. WHY? Because there are no "place bet hits" in his "hit ratio".

[Ted Craven]

FTL,

NOTED! I think we have sufficient examples for now, over various threads, to understand your proposition of how to change the Contest: eliminate the HIT RATE factor (or downgrade Place bet impact).

I'll get back to you when we do that. Or when we start another contest where everyone can enter. Then you can too.

Thank you for your concern and interest in educating bettors!

Ted

[For The Lead]

FTL,

NOTED! I think we have sufficient examples for now, over various threads, to understand your proposition of how to change the Contest: eliminate the HIT RATE factor (or downgrade Place bet impact).

I'll get back to you when we do that. Or when we start another contest where everyone can enter. Then you can too.

Thank you for your concern and interest in educating bettors!

Ted


Change the rules as long as you think they need changing.

I am simply pointing out shortcomings that perhaps could not have been anticipated.

[Ted Craven]

Change the rules as long as you think they need changing.

I am simply pointing out shortcomings that perhaps could not have been anticipated.

Perhaps I have been too subtle. I did not say I intended to change any rules. I merely stated that I felt your position was clear and that we had discussed it enough.

Ted

[For The Lead]

Perhaps I have been too subtle. I did not say I intended to change any rules. I merely stated that I felt your position was clear and that we had discussed it enough.

Ted

That's clear enough for me!

[JimG]

Hi Bill V,

Guess we will agree to disagree on this. I understand the spirit of having a contest to learn how to play everyday. However, the prize is very nice to those of us that do not get files comped and I would certainly be playing if it was a straight up roi contest. As the contest is currently drawn up, I would be super annoyed if I had the highest roi for the month but did not win because someone else was playing chalk to place late in the contest to pad their "consistency multiplier". I suppose I could do the same thing, but since I like to make a profit, that is not how I play in real life.

Racing is about money earned in pocket. The "hit rate" psyche stuff varies greatly by individual. I do appreciate all the work that must be involved in running this contest and I wish you and all the players the best of luck.

Jim

[Ted Craven]

Jim,

Would you have no qualms about losing a contest to someone who bet only 1 horse, minimum 15-1 odds each race, and who won the contest by hitting only 2 races where the Win mutuel maxed out at $42.00, or $4200 Total Bankroll?

Many would, and I don't think the Contest would be very educational, or fun. Against that contingency, the hit rate multiplier was conceived ...

Any suggestions?

Ted

[JimG]

Jim,

Would you have no qualms about losing a contest to someone who bet only 1 horse, minimum 15-1 odds each race, and who won the contest by hitting only 2 races where the Win mutuel maxed out at $42.00, or $4200 Total Bankroll?
Ted

None whatsoever if their bankroll was larger than mine at the end of the month. That is real world playing.



Many would, and I don't think the Contest would be very educational, or fun. Against that contingency, the hit rate multiplier was conceived ...




I've played in contests for years that involve total bankroll accumulated and the one thing I have never heard horse players say was that the contest was not fun.


Any suggestions?

Ted

Consistency is variable depending on the individual player. I understand from reading past follow-ups that consistency was stressed in two horse betting. Of course, logical horses paid more back then. With the drop in payoff of logical horses to win and place, I think today's world stresses value more. With value will come lower hit rates but possible profits.

Guess this was a long-winded way of saying off the top of my head I do not have a way to account for consistency, short of a separate concurring contest stressing consistency, that I would be comfortable with that does not unfairly penalize those that try to accumulate a bankroll.

Jim

[Ted Craven]

Jim,

Understood and thanks. And those kinds of contests exist everywhere for people to play in. Many other people will go broke or get discouraged betting like that. Sartin Methodology teaches another way - a way to stay in the game until bettable longshots come around, which they do regularly enough with software to reveal them.

Folks new to the sport should not be swinging for the fences if they want to be around for long. And I believe if the sport is to be around for long, newcomers need to be able to learn how to win regularly, not just every other, or every fifth time time they go to the track or sit down at their computers.

These ideas are core to the philosophy behind the current format of the Learn to Win contest (as they were to what Howard Sartin taught in his day). Some of us may indeed graduate to the icewater-in-the-veins school of wagering (or versions thereof), or indeed to multi-unit exotics with lower hit-rate/higher payoff, bigger rebate prospects. Every person has their own story, their own learning style and capacity. Everyone can evolve too, if they don't blow their brains out first.

Finding a middle path is the task ...

Ted

[JimG]

Jim,

Folks new to the sport should not be swinging for the fences if they want to be around for long. And I believe if the sport is to be around for long, newcomers need to be able to learn how to win regularly, not just every other, or every fifth time time they go to the track or sit down at their computers.

Ted

I'm not advocating swinging for the fences everyday. That has a connotation of blindly betting long shots to win. You pick your spots in a day and play horses going off at greater odds than they should be. My personal sweet spot is in the 7/2 to 6-1 range. In order to do that you need tools that the general public does not use. And you will lose many races in a row at times. If you are not prepared for that, you are not prepared for long term profit.

I will end my part of this by stating I think the Sartin methods of measuring pace and velocity are very good and worthwhile. Your software and others in the methodology can be vital in that regard. However, I think the betting part of the Sartin methodology stressing consistency leaves much to be desired in today's racing environment. Michael Pizzolla has publicly stated that he won a lot of races using the Sartin methods of betting (over 66%), when he was a teaching member, however, he was not really winning any money.

For all you folks that honestly win 2/3 of your races and profit long term at this game, my hat is off to you.

Jim

[rmath]

since I am one of the guilty ones for having made some of these bets, I feel that I should explain why I made these bets.
1) The win bet was placed on the horse that I felt had the best chance of winning this particular race. It is my KEY horse that in my opinion has a better than 50/50 chance of winning and if it does I want to increase my bankroll by as much as possible.
2) the 10.00 place bets are only used as savers to keep my total contest % at or around 50+%. I do NOT expect to increase my bankroll with these savers.

I try to be the best that I can be and truly am enjoying this contest.
I play with the goal of winning any of the prizes and if I feel that I am not going to be able to win the top prize then I will at least keep trying to win one of the other ones.

If this attitude offends anyone , then I apologize for that offense.
The prize of a free month of RDSS may not seem like much to many of you, but when you are not able to find work and have to live on a small fixed income a free month means that I can continue to play at the greatest game in town.
rmath

[buffaloxp]

I am a w/p player only ,sine 1980 , i start to play, i only bet i horse a race for w/p only, some time w/p/s, even today also a same way, w/p only, in this contest, i try to lean how to use RDSS to pick winner, and start bet only one horse, sine bill v said used two horse to win , so i still use $80 to win for my top pick , and put two $10 bet for 2 horse, just want to see is 2 horse bet good for me, i am not going to win any prize here, my gold is how to pick a winner useing RDSS, THANK TED to put this contest up, and hope more people can put there skill in this contest

[Bill V.]

I'm very sorry for my insensitive comments. It looks like I feel victim to the same persona which i despise
the most , The bully.. I was insensitive to what I perceived as laziness and people taking advantage of Ted's generosity
I have spent the day reading the yellow manual and many psychology of winning articles.
I learned many important lessons today I should have taken into account that we all have our own levels of skill and
pain thresholds, That each of us is effected by our own surroundings and emotions
I don't know where the contest will go now, I kind of related to Ted that they can never take away the joy and positive
that we felt this past month and a half and how maybe we had helped people do a just bit better.

I wish you and every one a win in as many races as you can get
I look forward every night to doing the scoring I wish you could understand the joy I get when I record
a winning selection for people and I hope that those who miss take something out of the race to improve on

I am rooting for you all
Don't let the bully's pressure you

[rmath]

Thanks Bill, I did not think you were being a bully.
My response was my way of looking at the contest. I have always been very competitive when playing in a contest.
I feel that I have learned much from this contest when I go over other peoples pacelines and selections. I especially like the way you show how changing the way one chooses the way a bet could be done differently returns a greater profit. Please continue with what you are doing.
I know that you are only trying to help each of us become better and more profitable handicappers.

Sincerely, your friend
rmath