Psy Ops 101

[wallyHeitz]

I think that psychology plays a part in winning. I have been guilty of being successful and then changing my methods; the main reason being that I don't like my win percentage and taking many losses in a row. My last 60 race cycle has been profitable, and nicely so. Betting Tier 1 only, but waiting for odds of 4:1 or better. My win % is 23%(betting one horse to win only), but there are many losses in there. It would be difficult to 'play' this way; I'd have to be extremely patient, passing many races due to low odds.

The Doc always warned about zig zagging using the methology.
I need at least a 200 race sample which shows that I can win before I will start to bet.

[rdiam]

You touch on an important aspect of betting. Your win percentage of 23% also means you have losing percentage of 77%: you will lose 3 out of 4 races you bet. In addition, you will lose 2 in a row 59% of the time, 3 in a row 46% of the time, 4 in a row 35% of the time, 5 in a row 27% of the time. Yes, you will have a losing streak of 5 (or more) more often than you win. Tough to stomach, for sure.

Sartin understood the psychology of betting, losing, and losing streaks. On a higher level, everyone should understand that betting requires a balance between win percentage and odds. You may have a +EV strategy, but after losing 5 bets in a row, will you have the stones to push out that 6th bet? At $2 bets, maybe. At $200 bets, maybe not.

The solution is to try to increase your win percentage without severely impacting your odds. Sartin suggested betting 2 horses a race with minimum 5/2 odds. Others, betting multiple horses in a race, use a bet on the favorite to breakeven when it wins, and collect a profit when other horses in the group bet come in first. Most of the large syndicates use some form of fractional Kelly betting.

Bottom line, make sure your personal methodology produces a win percentage outcome you can actually bet. Be careful with low win percentages (below 25% on 1 horse or 50% on 2 horses), as the losing streaks may be too much to keep betting through the streaks.

Richard

[gandalf380]

There is also another factor involved also. I heard Doc Sartin mention this at a couple of seminars. Betting on paper vs betting real money. Most people will show subtle differences in decision making when betting paper vs money. That is why I feel that making paper bets is of limited value. It is all well and good to show paper profits but will that translate to profits with real betting? I think it might make more sense to set aside $50 to make 25 1 horse bets or $52 to make 13 2 horse bets. Than see where you stand. If you show a profit take out your winnings and do it all over again. After a few rounds, this will build your confidence to a point where you could increase your bet.