--------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not my intention to insult anyone. I merely want to express what I believe to be true. If I'm wrong, which I don't believe I am, I stand corrected.

Assuming that you can maintain a 55% win percentage picking two horses in a race in the long term (100 races minimum), it would be necessary for one to maintain a minimum of a 5% edge to show a meager profit which would hardly be worth ones time.
The following formula can be used to calculate this “edge”

Winning Edge = Win% X Average Odds - Loss%

In the above scenario, you were wiling to accept an $8.00+ payout on $4.00 bet which relates to an even money bet on average possibly 6-5 at most.
Using the above formula which I believe is mathematically credible, this is what you have achieved and what you have to look forward to over the long run.
As per your example race:


Horse 1 (which you conceded as a loss in your two horse bet ) taking into consideration a possible Dead Heat to win.
1% X 1.2 -99% = -97.8 negative edge

Horse 2 (which is your winning horse)
55% X 1.2-45% = +21 positive edge

Total edge on a 2 horse bet at the above odds = -66.8% negative edge.
Over the long run you will deplete your bankroll on these type of bets and at the aforementioned odds.

2 horses
 

Hello Bill H
The race you decided to attack was not the norm

I bet using Howard Sartins prescribed method
I have personally witnessed him betting in the following manner

To review once again


1. Bet the horse in the top 3 VDC or BLBL that will pay 5/2 or better
2. For your second bet, Bet the horse in your top 3 BLBL or VDC that is the best overlay, and if all three horses in your top 3 BLBL and or VDC bet them all.

In the race, you referenced in the above post
The top 3 horses on my VDC were 3/1 and 7/2
There was a third horse in my top 3 but I chose not to bet it because
it went against the model and track profile at that time

I respect whatever you think is good for you
I don't see how posting a race example with 2 horses at 3/1 and 7/2
is somehow Sartin's law.

All I can say is please read followups 70 - 88
and follow Tim LT1 selections and Rmath betting and Read Mitch's
excellent post, Then you will see how following the Sartin Methodology
guidelines is the norm for winning

Good health and skill
Bill

If you did you would see many very profitable races

[QUOTE=Bill V.;125275
I respect whatever you think is good for you
I don't see how posting a race example with 2 horses at 3/1 and 7/2
is somehow Sartin's law.
[/QUOTE]


Bill, I have no fault with you or the race you originally posted.
I used it as an example because the betting method you exhibited, was to my mind, was incorrect. However, you did win that race and because your payoff was slightly over $8.00 for a $4.00 bet (a touch over even money) it drew my attention. Most betting professionals will bet to an edge. In the case of the race you originally displayed, you bet into a negative expectancy. My question to you would be, Is this the Sartin prescribed method of betting? and at what point and/or odds betting 2 or 3 horses to win would you pass the race. In other words what is the Sartin law (rule) or odds cutoff point in races such as these?

I don't think you can use the formula on each horse and then add them up. You already note the bet is equivalent to an even money, or possibly 6/5 payout. It's merely a betting entry at that point, so practically there's only 1 horse running at 6/5 (which he wins 55% of the time). Therefore, his edge is 55% x 1.2 - 45% = +21.

Your point is well taken but it does not answer my original question.

" My question to you would be, Is this the Sartin prescribed method of betting? and at what point and/or odds betting 2 or 3 horses to win would you pass the race. In other words what is the Sartin law (rule) or odds cutoff point in races such as these?"

Why bet to a 21% edge (4-1 odds) when your maximum payoff is (6-5) odds? To me, that type of betting offers no value.

I don't think Sartin gave specific odds to judge whether to pass or not, but he did mention that a 50% ROI was a good minimum to achieve. This means an individual's win percentage and average odds should be such to get that minimum ROI.

Once the individual knows his win percentage and average odds then he knows if he's above or below the 50% ROI, and if not, work on increasing win percentage or go for higher average odds.

For example, if your win percentage is 60% then you need 4/1 average odds to make 50% profit, betting 2 horses. In effect you determine your own odds cut-off once you know your win percentage.

He always said it was a risk/reward scenario. In your case that 6/5 reward is too low. As far as I remember he never tried to TELL anyone what their risk/reward had to be, and cared more that each were making a profit. Once you're on the profit side then you can work to make it better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
With no offense intended and in my humble opinion, anyone betting into a 50% ROI betting on 2 contenders will soon be parted from their money and/ or bankroll. Why would I risk $10.00 to make $10.00? That would be the same as betting an even money (1-1) odds overall bet on 2 horses.
Do you realize what type of win percentage you have to maintain to be profitable? Better then 50% to show a meager profit. To me it is not realistic and most likely destructive. As you well know, the likelyhood of runouts are always present. It happens to the best of us.:D

It's not even money. In the example I gave it's AVERAGE odds of 4/1 from both horses. That means each is 4/1, or 3/1 and 5/1, etc. If their average is 4/1 then you collect $10.00 for every $4.00 bet ($2 on each horse). If you have a 60% win rate this would yield a profit of 50% [for 100 races, 60 wins collects $600 versus $400 wagered is $200 profit, or 50% ROI].

If You Invest in 2 bets @ $2.00 (each) at odds of 4-1 = $4.00
(Average Odds have multiple combinations) If your lower odds horse wins, the bet becomes progressively worse.
If you win you will receive $10.00 ( $5.00 for every $2.00 bet) Which equates to 3/2 odds. If you choose to bet these races then rots of ruck. :confused: It's your prerogative. Providing and hypothetically speaking, if you can maintain a 60% win rate betting 2 horses over 100 races (doubtful), you might win a little bit of money but in my experience most handicappers are not capable of maintaining a 60% hit rate over the long term. It just a'int happening.:eek:

As far as I'm concerned, betting without value is a losing proposition. To exasperate a poor betting scenario, the use for proof of short term cycles such as 20 race cycles are useless, promotes false confidence, proves nothing and enhances a losing environment.