Ted,

Nice explanation of some things you want to look at using RDSS


BJ,

Nice hit

Bill

Thanks for the clarification

Minimum odds
 

Hi Bill,

I haven't looked at the relevant materials in a while, but my memory is that Doc recommended, for those splitting 60/40, 5/2 as the low odds minimum on one horse, and 4/1 minimum on the other. For those splitting 50/50, minimums of either 7/2 or 4/1. I do remember that, in all the later FUs, Doc recommends 50/50 at the higher odds as the split that he himself used and recommended as more profitable.

You mention Doc recommending two horses at 5/2 as a minimum, which, as I say, is not what I recall. It could be that Doc was using a 60% 2-horse win rate as his profit threshhold in making this estimate, however. This would yield a 5% edge even at 5/2.

I think the most important point to keep in mind in relation to minimum odds, and one that Dick Mitchell was continually bringing up with Doc and in his writings, is that minimum odds, if they are to be profitable, must be based on the player's hit rate. So, although one would have a 5% profit with a a 60% hit rate, betting a minimum of 5/2 on two horses, a bettor with a 50% hit-rate would be losing 13% on the dollar, betting two horses at 5/2, and only breaking even at 3-1. I think most players are already aware of this, but I would suggest that anyone who isn't check their hit rate, before deciding what kind of odds to accept.

A couple of relevant math notes: for the player with a 60% 2-horse hit- rate, each odds half-tick in one's average odds is worth an additional 15% in ROI, for the player with 50% two horse hit-rate each odds half-tick in one's average odds is worth an additional 12%. A good reason to insist on slightly higher minimum odds.

Cheers,

B Jennet

60/40 or 50/50
 

BJ. You are correct when you said Doc suggested a 60/40 split if you used 5/2 as the minumum odds , when betting two horses. This was his suggestion in the early years. Later on tho he did suggest a 50/50 split if you raised the minumum to 7/2 or 4/1, this was for anyone that was getting most of the higher priced winners in their top 3 or 4 vdc or bl/bl horses. There are several articles in the later issues of the Follow-Up where Doc addressed this issue,his idea was (I believe) was to show us that we could all make a profit if we followed either one of his guidelines. Doc also suggested that if a 3rd of 4th choice was 9/2 or above you should consider putting a small saver wager on it. Doc also would bet the higher odds horses to place and show if the odds were high enough. Doc had a sixth sense that was uncanny in his ability to know when one of these longer odds horses was going to hit the board. On several occasions at different seminars I personally saw him do this. He was truly a genius when it came to handicapping and betting.

Read it or hear it
 

Hi Rmath

I will be very interested in reading Doc say to bet 50/50
with a minimum odds of 7/2
If you can provide the source for this statement in a published
Sartin methodology document It will be very helpful to me


Thanks
Bill

Bill V.
[QUOTE]Hi Rmath

I will be very interested in reading Doc say to bet 50/50
with a minimum odds of 7/2
If you can provide the source for this statement in a published
Sartin methodology document It will be very helpful to me

Thanks
Bill [/QUOTE
--------------------------------------------
Hi Bill,

From what I was led to believe and correct me if I'm mistaken, the Sartin recommended cut-off odds number (2 horse win bets) should be 5-2.

I'm off the opinion that in short fields it should be reduced to 2-1.

Docs guidelines
 

Bill, there are several issues where Doc published his guidelines.
Issue 76, page 38 is the one that I like the best.
Doc knew that not everyone would be able too pass a lot of races with short odds contenders and wait on the races where wagercapping and betting 50/50
would be the most profitable. This is why he suggested guideline # 7, a 60/40bet. He also suggested a 70/30 bet if the odds were really low and you insisted on playing the race anyway.
I hope this helps answer your inquiry.
rmath

7/2
 

Thanks Rmath
There are several references to Doc's guideline of 5/2
and betting 60/40 and even 70/30 I'm looking for a example when Doc writes
or says in an audio to bet at no less than 7/2

Here is an example from FU #78

which supports that 7/2 is not his guideline

Im looking for a metion of 7/2

In follow up 78 page 8 Grinding it out for value

Doc writes " They imply that my 5/2 minimum odds are some kind of rule. I have said repeatedly that you
must fix your own minimum to fit your own anxieties. If you cannot handle those anxieties and will accept
less than 5/2 wager 60/40. Its not difficult to make one wager on a lower price horse an the other on an overlay

5/2 not 7/2
 

Bill, I believe you are right and that I am incorrect about the reference to 7/2.
As far as I know 5/2 was always Docs proposed guideline as the lowest odds HE would accept and each of us must make our guidelines. He did suggest that if you are going to bet horses below 5/2 then you should split your bet 60/40 or even 70/30.
I personally use 3/1 or 7/2 in fields with 8 or more entrants , in fields with less
horses I rarely play because too many times both of my top 2 are 2/1 or lower. If the 3rd or 4th horse is above 10/1 then I might bet 2.00 to win knowing that I will probably lose .
Over the past 20+ years I have come to realize that 3 or 4 races a day is all I need to bet and make enough to get by on. So I check 2 or 3 tracks each day to see which one has at least 3 races with 8 to 12 entries and each of these has at least 3 North American running lines.
I am truly sorry if I have misled anyone to believe Docs guidelines were other than he published.
rmath

Thats nice
 

No need to be sorry Like you nicely added to the group. Doc offered guidelines not rules. You added that each of us must bet how we feel is to our advantage
and comfort and that will help us all much more


"Do it this way or else your a fool"

I don't ever think that will be the Pace and Cap way

Good Skill
Bill