Quote:
Originally Posted by shoeless
Also for 2 horse betting what value should you be looking for?Let's say Im starting with a 200 bank and goint to invest 10% of it a race.Jeff
|
Are you trying to win, or are you trying to make a score? It looks to me like you're trying to do a little of both. In my opinion, you have to make a commitment one way or the other.
I would suggest starting with a $400 bank and betting $4 per race--$2 to win on each horse. Bet win only. No exactas, no trifectas, no nothing else. Prove you can grind out the money betting to win first.
You'll never be risking more than 1% of bank. Too conservative for you? If you can't win betting $4, you're certainly not going to win betting $100.
Prove you're a winner, and then you can raise the bet.
If you double that $400 to $800, you can then raise your bet to $8 per race, and now you can either bet $4 and $4, $5 and $3 or $6 and $2--more money on the shorter price horse.
As far as prices are concerned, as a general rule of thumb, don't bet unless you're getting at least a
minimum of 3-1 on each horse. 5-2 and 4-1, and 2-1, and 5-1, is OK. (I'll go into more detail on this later.)
10% is way too much. If you can't win betting $4 per race, then bet on paper for 100 races until you figure something out.
Just so you know, I'm basically in the same boat. I don't think I'm a good enough handicapper at this point in time, so I don't bet. I haven't made a real money bet in three months. Still researching, still testing, and making lots and lots of paper bets. My testing is slightly profitable, and I could make money, but I want to improve even more before I get fully committed. If I don't think I can make enough money to justify the time commitment, while at the same time not incurring inordinate risks, then I'll give up the game.
I don't gamble. No edge--no bet.