Acceptable Win Percentage

[JeffH]

I'm just curious what an acceptable win percentage is using RDSS. In the age of "wagercapping", where we are hiding horses that are below an acceptable odds level, I would think a decent percentage is about 45 to 50%. Again, just
trying to get an idea of what to expect using the method.

[Bill V.]

Hello JeffH
good question but hard to answer. It all depends on you.
What type of track do you wager? What type of wager?
Win only? or also place and show wagers ? multi horse bets horizontal races bets
Do you bet most races? Maidens 2yO turf maidens? 4.5 sprints ?
or do you bet non maiden dirt sprints only

Win Percentage in the RDSS / modern methodology is outdated
ROI is the key

[Bill V.]

From Doc Follow up 83

[JeffH]

Thanks for the response. I have 5 contenders per race, betting the top 2 if 5-2 or higher. I hide all tiered horses if less than 5-2 odds. I am still trying to determine if passing the race if my top 2 tiered horses are both less than 5-2 is the best way to go. Or if I should play the 3rd and 4th tiered horses in that situation. Again, I am new to the methodology, so many questions will answer themselves in time.

[JeffH]

I also bet several tracks per day (5 or 6) when I bet (once or twice a week). I am betting all races that meet my odds requirements; and I can rate all horses. I am doing this on paper right now. I am working on paclines, eliminating to 5 contenders, using the BL/BL to determine the tiers. Now I'm breaking my bets into 20 race cycles. As I said, most of my questions will answer themselves when I get 10 cycles completed (200 races). If what I'm doing is profitable, I will continue. If not, I will look at my weaknesses and adjust my betting.

[Profiler8]

I think the win percentage is not very important. If you play longshots and hit only 10% winners, you still can make a good profit. It depends on your wagering style. Some handicappers make a profit when they hit 60 % winners, others when they hit 10% winners.

Greetings
Tim

[socantra]

I haven't been very active lately, due to personal circumstances, but a few years ago, RichieP and I compared notes while both were using Validator 3 and wagercapping. We had very different styles, and I think both made more use of the 3rd ranked horse than it sounds like you'are doing. We agreed that we were both hitting in the range of 40% betting two horse win bets. By being more selective, I could move my win % up to around 45%, but my ROI went down, so I was quite pleased with 40%.

Dick...

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by JeffH

I also bet several tracks per day (5 or 6) when I bet (once or twice a week). I am betting all races that meet my odds requirements; and I can rate all horses. I am doing this on paper right now. I am working on paclines, eliminating to 5 contenders, using the BL/BL to determine the tiers. Now I'm breaking my bets into 20 race cycles. As I said, most of my questions will answer themselves when I get 10 cycles completed (200 races). If what I'm doing is profitable, I will continue. If not, I will look at my weaknesses and adjust my betting.

Hi Jeff,

I think your plan of only betting on paper until you're making a profit is great. This was the path suggested by handicapping authority Dick Mitchell, whose 'Commonsense Betting' is a very good book on the subject, if you can find it. It was Mitchell's influence which finally persuaded Doc Sartin to construct the BL/Bl, and get involved with wagercapping, after mutuel prices on pace-advantage horses began deterioriating, as an increasing number of players became aware of the power of Sartin's work.

As others have said here, don't worry about win % (or 'hit rate' as some call it) - ROI is the thing to watch. I think it was possible to have a two-horse 70% win rate at Santa Anita this year and still lose money. Finding overlays is what the game is about. And re the issue of two-horse betting - this originated in Doc Sartin's desire to instill confidence in his clients by giving them a higher hit rate than they would have with one, but it has no mathematical grounding. If you're already confident in your ability, and don't mind hitting fewer winners, but making more money, you're better off with just betting overlays, as Dick Mitchell advised and successfully practiced.

Re betting the #3 and #4 ranked horses, nothing wrong with this, but it's worth noting that Doc Sartin formulated this strategy before Ted's recent improvement of the top two TE horses. In the 90s and earlier, the top four ranked horses won at a roughly even 20% rate - you can check through some Follow-Ups from that period to confirm. Since the BL/BL is virtually identical to both TE and Perceptor rankings, it's worth remembering that #1 TE now wins at roughly a 40% rate, #2, at 25%, #3 at 15%, and #4, at 9%. Of course, there is, at times, justification for betting the lower-ranked animals - something we discussed recently here - but, as Doc Sartin said, in one of the later Follow Ups, you really need a strong reason to do so - either odds or e/l.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[Ted Craven]

Jeff,

I salute you for your patient, diligent and methodical study of the materials! And I think you ask ALL the right questions: paceline selection strategy, Win percentage vs ROI, what to do about favourites. You appear to be pursuing the 'recommended' strategy of hiding favourites below a certain odds threshold, then betting (at least in the Win pool) 2 of the remaining Top 3 BL horses. Doc Sartin recommended this approach in later years. There are OTHER approaches though, and I think that personal psychology and comfort level with a Loss will play a big part of the overall approach an individual chooses - that is to say: higher Hit Rate / lower average mutuel and whatever ROI that produces versus betting against favourites / low Hit Rate, higher average mutuel and that ROI.

Let me restate - Doc would be the first person to advise you to conceive a method which left you comfortable in your skin: heart not palpitating, not berating yourself for betting against a strong favourite or second guessing after 4 close call losses in a row to a horse you had in your Top 3 or 4. I know you have your own existing methods and are exploring the Sartin Method here. And I'm guessing you accept that working on paper IS NOT functionally the same as putting money on the line: the EMOTION is not the same at all, and EMOTION is at the core of the risk taking endeavour.

All that is background to my assertion that you have to discover an analysis / contender ranking / wager decision strategy that matches your psychological and emotional makeup. You don't HAVE TO eliminate top ranked favourites under 5/2 at post time and bet 2 of the remaining 3 BL. As an alternative, depending on your paceline selection prowess (validated by how often you get the winner in your top 3 or 4 BL), you could retain those low odds favourites (because there are a LOT of them) and calculate your Hit Rate and determine whether you can accommodate something like (probably at the worst case) EVEN odds plus 5/2 for 2 horses, resulting in either breakeven or .75 cents on the dollar. Again, a WORST case (and EVEN and 4-1 might be nicer, I agree). The point is, with a higher Hit Rate, say 65%+ betting 2 horses (together with some race selectivity) you'll need a lower average mutuel and can afford to relax some. Including some Place bets on higher Odds contenders (e.g. 5-1+) or replacing 2 horses with a Win/Place in some cases, will increase your Hit Rate and possibly comfort level.

This only matters if you NEED a higher comfort level when actually betting MONEY. If you are comfortable betting often enough from your 3rd Tier of BL, where the mutuels will on average be longer but the hits fewer, you may be quite happy with, and only require a 40% Hit Rate. The point is: your comfort level will not be the same as mine, or others. When you have amassed 200 races worked on paper, following your described method and noting your Hit Rate and resulting ROI AND frequency of Losses in a row (that can be terrifying) - consider then going back and reworking the same races NOT hiding the favourite (and thus betting against it), but instead including that favourite above a certain minimum Odds threshold (say EVEN to 7/5) plus your highest Odds Top 3 BL horse. Compare the numbers for both strategies. Does one method feel more comfortable than the other (albeit on paper and with no money or emotion on the line). Did you trade less ROI for greater comfort, thus potential more consistency and focus when things go LIVE? Was that trade worth it? Etc...

Lately, I have been doing a lot of precisely this last exercise and I must say that for myself, I feel happier hitting more races (and betting real money) and accepting (or passing where prudent) the flow of predictable chalk, while awaiting the good mutuels (including those $8.00 - $10.00 ones) still found in my Top 3 BL (or other Early or Late readouts depending on Match Up considerations).

Only YOU can know what approach works best for YOU, and that's why there are so many different readouts (different approaches, really) included in the Sartin software (too many different, and redundant readouts, though, IMO). The record keeping, the study, the attempt to remain consistent when developing a personal approach - all this is A LOT OF WORK! But I say you should expect to work hard, and expect to produce double digit ROI in the Win pool at least - ongoing - at pretty much EVERY track on the continent (better at some than others perhaps, and regardless of track takeout, BTW )

I hope the above didn't sound like equivocating. Follow the rules at first to understand the rules - then break the rules if it serves you and you can prove that doing so consistently works better or feels better for you.

Good luck, good skill! Keep us posted.

Ted

[Charlie D]

Hi Jeff

Audio Collection > Kansas City Seminar July 91> Tapes #10 may be of help.