Target Betting

[smithy]

I've read that to have a profitable system you must be in front on level stakes, then you can utilise staking plans, to maximise your profit.

With regards to Target Betting advocated by Don Scott's books, by rating your owns horses to odds, then bet accordingly. Eg. if you rate Horse A at 4.00 to win a $100 put $25, if it actually comes up at 10.00 on bookies still put on $25 and get overs if it wins.

Recently, on Retro one punter mentioned if he rates a horse using the above example, when he gets the bookies odds he will reduce his bet to $10 to win his $100.

I've started testing the 2 methods and find the 2nd Target betting strategy more profitable so far. Strike rate 20% avg price $6.00.

Currently, small sample but thought I would ask if any others use Target Betting and to which format.

Cheers
Smithy

[partypooper]

Smithy, on this forum as I've come to realise is a miriad of people at different stages of their "professional careers".

See, for some "Target" betting might mean aiming to win a certain amount per investment and then carrying on covering to win until a winner is reached, whereas, to others it means targeting to win a certain amount EACH race, on one or MORE runners. But NEVER covering to win!

Personally I use a much broader spread, coupling selections and targeting race to race week to week. IN THE END it is profitable BUT it can be boring.

An interesting thing though is that sometimes I am showing a loss at levels YET am still in front showing around 30%POT overall so there you go!!

[davez]

many disagree but if one can develop a punting method which can breakeven over time then there will almost certainly be a betting plan which will help turn a profit - & i am not refering to staking plans which can wipe out a bank on a bad day.

[syllabus23]

Smithy, on this forum as I've come to realise is a miriad of people at different stages of their "professional careers".

Lolol you nailed that one....

[partypooper]

syallbus, not sure whose side you're on there???

Davez, not disagreeing , but for me it's too slim. I've come across heaps of plans that break even over time but wouldn't be game to try and turn the tide with a staking plan. I like to see a level stakes profit (at least 10% POT)
then apply a staking plan, just to cover the pitfalls. What I was saying is that I'd done that but at some stage there would have been a level stakes loss, yet was still in front. I firmly believe this was due to a wide spread. eg.
(a) considering ALL of ones' selections on one day as being ONE bet, i.e. say you have 7 bets for the day and have a return of $10.5 (to a $) then you are at an equivolent of $1.50 or 2-1 "on" for the day. if your returns were $14 then you are at 1-1, if your returns are say only $2 then your return is a negative .2857 for the day.

[crash]

I'm with you there Party.
No staking plan can turn what would be a level stakes loss into a profit. Using a % of bank betting method as a bet basis when winning is all that is needed to steadily increase profit. A staking plan in that favourable situation will not provide a greater profit either. There is mathematical proof of that [from a mathematician] on this forum for anyone into maths.

I'm also with Don Scott. Offered $10 on a 4/1 chance I would not reduce the bet either [I personally would increase it with a rare 100% overlay like that] as by reducing the bet to $10 an opportunity has been missed. The only reason to reduce the bet is if the punter has no confidence in his own betting line. If that is the case all his bets are in trouble.

[KennyVictor]

There is mathematical proof of that [from a mathematician] on this forum for anyone into maths.


That sounds interesting Crash. Can you point me to where I can find this proof, or give me a few search words that might hit it.

KV

[crash]

It was [the link] put up by an astute Female forum member but I can't recall her name. Perhaps someone knows whom I'm talking about [?] and then her posts can be searched.

[purpleheart68]

I think you were referring to Felicity.Albeit somewhat tongue in cheek.

[crash]

Thanks Purpleheart.

Ah yes, Felicity !!! I'm sure it was she who suplied the maths. link.