If this was the case

[bryz55]

Ok here's something I have been thinking about...

Scenario is the horses are all the same variables are field sizes and prices of animal but basically the chance of each is the same.

So the chance of a place is as follows

Fld size.
8 =3/8 = 37.5% place chance
9 =3/9 = 33.33%
10=3/10=30%
11=3/11=27.27%

Say your full stake is $100 the place, and in an 8 horse field ur required price is $1.50.

The question is would you reduce your stake in relationship to the % chance of place as the field size increases? And would you required a larger dividend to compensate for this?

Eg. 8 horse field =100@$1.5= $150 (s/r37.5%) so100/37.5x33.3=88.8
9. =88.8@$1.68=$150(s/r33.3%)so 100/37.5x30=80
10. =80@$1.9. =$150(s/r30%)
11. =72.72@$2.06=$150(s/r27.72%)

So to have a smaller risk when the chance of placing is less?

Anyone thought about this and would it be a way to make sure you got the value required? Obviously you need to have a sound seln method but if it were a game of chance would this improved anything or reduce your losses??

Winner winner chicken dinner!

[Raven]

You're on the right track i think. Reduce bets or eliminate the under value selections will improve your place return big time, in that respect its no different to win betting.
Off the top of my head:

Grade your selections as 100%, 90%, 80%, 70%, or 60% chances of placing (in a theoretical 8 horse race). Just base it on your confidence level. Now adjust this perceived probability of placing by the acutal number of starters.

So, a 90% chance in a 12 horse race is 0.9 x 8/12 = 60% chance. A 100% hope in a 17 horse race is 1 x 8/17 = 47% chance. So adjust your bets AND minimum value price to these calcs of percieved value.