Mia

[Turbulator]

Originally Posted by partsnut

Turbulator: I have to disagree with you here.

You can disagree all you like, but the simple fact is that you are wrong.

For those that have to bet 2 horses I wish you lots of luck because in the long term you will need it.

It has nothing to do with luck. It is simple math, and you are overlooking the obvious. Go back and reread what I said, and then do the math again.

Betting 2 races with 2 picks as opposed to betting 2 races with 4 picks would be throwing away 2 bets and can never be compared or considered the same.

Nonsense.

[Turbulator]

Originally Posted by lbj

Turb,
I'm not interested in betting 2 horses.

Neither am I. I am only pointing out a misconception some people seem to have have.

[partsnut]

Quote:

You can disagree all you like, but the simple fact is that you are wrong.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with luck. It is simple math, and you are overlooking the obvious. Go back and reread what I said, and then do the math again.

Quote:

Nonsense.

Turb, when you do the simple math and assuming we both bet equal amounts per horse or pick let's say $2.00 per Horse, hypothetically. We bet 10 races and you hit 60% at 3-1 on 20 bets at $ 2.00 each = $ 40.00 invested
You hit 6 winners at $ 8.00 for $ 48.00. Your profit is $ 8.00
Now I make only 10 bets at $2.00 each and hit 3 or 30% and wager the same amount on my single pick that you did on your two picks, I would get back $24.00 on my $20.00 bets. In this respect we are proporitonally equal.
You would have invested twice as much as I did which would be an additional $20.00 to make an additional $ 4.00.
Naturally this does not take into account a protracted losing streak where you would lose twice as much money as I would. If we talk about long shots and not 3-1 shots that are equal your returns as opposed to your investments would be substantially diminished.

If you think this is a prudent way to bet then just keep on doing it. It's your money and I have no fault with that. However, you can can disagree with me but
don't say I'm wrong when in fact I'm right. I would say to you, if you think what I say is nonsense then I would have to think is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[partsnut]

Turbulator: It was never my intention to argue with you or offend you. Naturally, I don't want to be offended as well.

All I said was that I disagree with you.
I never used the word nonsense as you did.
I never made a direct statement saying that you were wrong as you did.

I don't want to waste my valuable time and energy arguing with you or anyone else.

If what you do works for you then keep on doing it.

My preference is betting one horse.
As far as I'm concerned this matter is closed.

You see things in a different light then I do.
We don't have to agree but let's respect each others views and stay friends.

[JimG]

In the same vein that no two races are the same, no two handicappers are the same either. There is no right answer to one horse or multi-horse win betting, no more so than whether you should bet exactas, trifectas, superfectas, or pick 3's etc. It depends on the hit rate and comfort level of the individual. This is a personal decision that should come down to what you can win at.

All that really matters to a serious player is whether he wins long term or not.

If you are not a winning player but want to be, you should experiment with different methods of handicapping, betting, until you find what is right for you. But always remember, just because it is right for you does not mean it is right for everyone else. The converse is also true, just because a method does not work for you does not mean it won't work for somebody else.

Jim

[Turbulator]

Turb, when you do the simple math and assuming we both bet equal amounts per horse or pick . . .

This is the first misconception you (and many others) have about two-horse win betting. If you are a $100 one horse win bettor, then why would you suddenly become a $200 two-horse win bettor?

If you are a $100 one-horse win bettor, then to bet two horses to win you would simply divide your bet amount in half and bet $50 to win on each of your two horses. Now, over X number of races you are betting an identical amount of money as your one-horse win-bet counterpart . . . but you are winning (approximately, and as Jim G said--depending on your hit rate) twice as often.

Now the math becomes straight forward.

And by the way, this has nothing to do with someone's preferences or betting styles. It also has nothing to do with arguing or offending anyone. At least not with me. This is purely a mathematical consideration.

You have been making these statements for at least the last 7 months or so and no one has bothered to challenge you on them. (In fact, it prompted me to write a 5000 word article on the "Mathematics of Two-Horse Win Betting," but I never bothered to publish it anywhere.)

Your intractable dogmatism on this subject I dare say is offensive to some, especially in light of your obvious mathematical errors.

I stand by my previous statement as being 100% correct.

"If your one horse win-rate is 50% (or less) than that of your two-horse win-rate, then betting two 3-1 shots to win will achieve the exact same results (or better) than those of betting one 3-1 shot to win."

[admin]

Thank You Jim G

I keep reading these one or two horse win bet post and
One thing keeps hitting me

The negatives of two horse betting are clear
you lose a bet every time you make one
But the odds are always different
I feel the way to go is to really try for 1 horse at or above 5/2
and then trust the program and bet one more horse that
can pay well enough that the lost bets are covered
for me two winners over 6.5/1 each 20 race cycle are the
backbone of a good cycle

Betting two horses gives me just a tad more
ability to catch that 10/1 ML horse. It is gonna win
and if it can't well that 3/1 or 7/2 will do it
One more thing ,


May I ask you all this ? Think about all the really big
win bets you have hit and ask Did I win this bet
as a single win bet ?

For me all my win bets over 25/1 were in two horse win bets
The biggest double, pick 3 and pick 4 all had no single
picks

This is all I can add I do not have the ability or desire
to one horse bet. I think a post like this is great because
everybody need to find what works best for them

I just want to speak up for the two horse bet people

[shoeless]

I have to agree with both sides here Im a one horse better,but like Bill says most longshots I have hit have come on two horse bets.

[The Yank]

Originally Posted by shoeless

I have to agree with both sides here Im a one horse better,but like Bill says most longshots I have hit have come on two horse bets.

One thing that appears clear mathematically.

If you had your choice of being a:

A. A one horse bettor with a 30% winning percentage and a 1.20 ROI

versus

B. A two horse bettor with 50% winning percentage and a 1.20 (the same) ROI.

Which would you rather be?

According to Kelly Criteria and common sense, B is much more preferable.

We can also show that B is better even if the ROI is only 1.15.

The general idea is that you can safely risk a larger portion of your bankroll the higher win percentage.