TAKING TWO TO WIN
 

Hi All.

Been playing with taking two runners to win.

Ive been doing the following:

Horse A:
100 units/odds
Horse B:
100 units/odds

Say A is 3 and B is 5.5

Gives us a bet of 100/3 = $33 units on A and 100/5.5 = $18

its been working well, flat stakes,

As long as the OUTLAY for the two combined runners IS BELOW 50 units, assuming 50 % S/R we will be in front flat stakes.

Selections are the fav and second/third/fourth, what ever you like at 5 minutes before jump, look for overlays on the "non favs" using which ever method you like.

It is best to bet with fixed odds, fluctuations sometimes go the wrong way.

Another thing, if something is paying OVER 10, say 15, KEEP the odds at 10 regardless, if it comes in, its a bonus.

Interested if anyone else has played with this.

Three days last week i used it and only had to have five bets to clear all targets, yesterday was another cracker !

Cheers Ding

I was a 2 horse per race man for about 15yrs. Now I'm a one horse per race man. If 2 horse per race are better than 1, then why not 4? There can be only one winner [unless a dead-heat] and any other bets you have are done dough and also both selections often lose [far too often].

A race bet amount can be divided up anyway you like without being better off than single bets. It's simple maths. If punter 'A' has $20 on a horse at $5sp. and it wins, he collect $100 and make $80 profit. If Punter 'B' has $10 on the same horse and $10 on another he has also outlayed $20 but collects $50 and only makes $30 profit [not $40]. Why? Because he he has lost $10 on a losing bet in the same race [that could have been a winning bet on another race].

Crash, you are a favourite of mine as your handicapping techniqes remind me so much of my type of betting in the Uk (many years ago) I lived on my wits so to speak!! @ but on this one you have lost me....... I'm wondering if you have become "befuddled" with all this system stuff!

Read crash's words carefully, he is spot on the money.

I've highlighted his most important words....



This is why it doesn't work unless you know all your horses are over the odds.

Hi, Chrome prince.

I knew someone who knew someone (sounds somewhat poetic) who worked with Mark Read. He said that M. R. would look at his top three selections and then totalled their percentages. For example, if they totalled 60% and he could get that percentage he would bet all three horses regardless if one, or even two, were below his calculated prices. If he could not get that total percentage then he would not bet on any of the three horses.

Again, this is only anecdotal and I am not certain if it is factual. But it does seem to have logic, and provides a fairly high strike rate.

Hi Party,

One thing I haven't lost in this game is sound reasoning. What I have done in this system page of the forum is get to the point with far fewer but carefully chosen words to describe my meaning. Chrome got the gist spot on. Especially: " A race bet amount can be divided up anyway you like without being better off than single bets' [2+2 will always = 4] ........which well and truly addresses the subject of this thread period.

thats where i was going, betting under 50 % michaelg.
If one looks at the s/r of certain winners, as long as there is profit there, it could be a bet.
I dont mean bet every race, or bet 70 units on a 2/1 fav and 10 on the next, just bet when there is value.
Somewhere else on the net there is discussion on overlays and HOW to find them or it, some bookies top two or three "favs" are what i am pointing to,...without saying names !
These "professionals" know their business, therefore the odds that they are offering, if something or two somethings stand out like dogs #@&*% then maybe thats a bet.
Their top three or four are the big win s/r winners.
I agree 110 % with you guys regarding betting one runner, but i take heart that too many times i have had a beaut selection process fall apart with my selectionss running second continually, only to change feet and then have them all winning and not being on them.

A personal contact from this forum emailed me once with an idea once and in that message he said basically ANY funds made of the punt is good,...and free (kind of sorta)

Anyways, just ideas, maybe some one might see some something in it.

Cheers Ding

Hi michaelg,

I know he dutch bets from his writings and publicised bets, there are also many pro punters that dutch bet successfully.

I'm not sure he bets if they are below his calculated prices though, as this would be suicide.

There's nothing wrong with dutch betting if you have an accurate rating system and can maintain a posive outcome, what is questionable, is betting to odds or get a profit, when you are betting unders most of the time.

Having said all that, if the ratings system is that accurate, I'm of the opinion that betting more than one horse is shotgun approach and better profits could be made by backing the top rated longterm straight out (IF the ratings are accurate).

However, it depends on the price obtainable.

One might have a horse rated at 2/1 on top and get 5/2 odds, and might have the second top rated at 6/1, but get 12/1 odds.

Why bet the top rated, when the overs clearly are with the 6/1 shot, just for the sake of snaring a winner. Longterm the profits are with the greater overlay.

Again, IF the ratings are accurate.

One bet is always a wasted bet and money down the gurgler!

Racing is unpredictable as we all well know by hard luck and experience, if both or all lose, it's very hard to make that up, you need to get massive overs to make up the loss of two or three losers, two or three times.

Yes, if his ratings are accurate. But if what my friend says is true, then maybe M. R. might think the total ratings of the three horses are more accurate than the rating of each individual horse?

You do have a point there ;)

I'm not sure whether MR is more punter than bookie, or bookie than punter.

Too many punters think about strike rate (shotgun approach to snare a winner).

Too many bookies think about percentages (when betting, not fielding).

Both are doing themselves an injustice, by eating into their longterm profits.

While a high strike rate builds confidence, and percentages are very important, we can be blinded by the impact on the ACTUAL dollar return.

It's dollars won and in the pocket, not strike rate or percentages.

If you know what I mean.

Here's an example:

I go to the track and have three bets in three races and two of them win providing a profit of 5 units.

Or

I go to the track and bet five horses in three races and two of them win.

1 Bet 3 profit 5
2 Bet 15 profit 5

Same profit, bigger exposure (risk).

A bad day sees me lose 3 units in case 1
A bad day sees me lose 15 units in case 2

Very hard to come back from 15 units down as opposed to 3 units down.

Likely profit outcome has to be case 1

Profit has to be easier to make with less risk, even though the strike rate might not be as high.

Mr. MR is in the unique position of being able to manipulate his own odds.
He just might be settling for his 60%, so he can adjust his book accordingly.

Show me a punter with 'accurate' [meaning exactly that and nothing less] ratings and I will show you the same man [very rich] who definitely has no need to back more than one horse per race. Why would he bother ?

The rule is always back overs and that is much harder than most punters think. There might be only one or two bets per meeting [or none] where the odds are plainly better than your selections real chance of winning [you have information from a handicapping angle or some other source not accessed by 'the public' and they don't miss much].
To find 2 horses in the same race that are genuine overs from your short list is la la land stuff. It happens so rarely that on most race days you would never find a bet.

My local TAB used to have Read's Ratings and I tested the top 3 system over a short period of time. It did not fare too well mainly because the divvies were unstable. Quite often the 3 horses were under the total percentage one minute prior to the race-start and therefore became a bet, but the final divvies showed that in reality it should have been a no-bet, and vice-versa.

But I did have some success betting only those that were "overs" even if it meant betting on only one horse in a particular race. I had even better success betting "overs" as stand-outs in exactas especially with races that had 11 starters or more.

My own view was very positive on Read Ratings, as is my view on Techform ratings, it is not how it goes overall, but as you suggest, how you personally use them.

I found the overs very hard to snag at the TAB, drifting prices meant very difficult to know what you'll end up with.

Your exotic strategy is the only way to take real advantage, unless you have a fixed price bookie that will give you a firm dividend.

Betfair is no longer the cash cow it once was.

Smarter punters
Smarter bookies
Number of users
Bots

Have killed a lot of the value.

A lot of users got burned early and have educated themselves or gone bust.

Try finding an arb situation on the races these days!

Hi Chrome,
I'm interested to know what your attitude would be to your two horses in consecutive races. IF your ratings are accurate I imagine you would bet them both. Now IF your ratings are accurate I see no long term difference in betting the two bets in consecutive races or in the one race - IF your ratings are accurate.
Take your example horses.
Betting them in consecutive races we'll take a set of 42 bets (just to make the maths easy with the odds you chose). 21 bets on a 2-1 shot paying 5-2 and 21 bets on a 6-1 shot paying 12-1.
You would expect a third of the 2-1 shots to win giving you 7 wins from your 21 races and returning you 7 lots of $3.50 or $24.50. And you'd expect 1 in 7 of your 6-1 shots to win returning 3 winners at $13 each or $39.

Betting them in the same race again for 21 races I maintain you would have three wins by your 6-1 shot paying $39 and 7 wins by your 2-1 shot paying you $24.50 - same result (IF your ratings are accurate).
Why is this so if with two races you could conceivably have two winners while in a single race you always have one loser. Because immediately you declare that one of your horses didn't win it means the other one has a greater chance of being the winner.
Take the case of the 2-1 shot winning. This means in 7 of the 21 races the 6-1 shot didn't win. True. But take the other 14 races - because the 2-1 shot didn't win the chances of all the other horses winning increases proportionately. In fact since the chance of Mr 2-1 winning is exactly a third if you take him out the chance of the other horses winning improves by 3/2. The 6-1 horse who did have a 14.29% chance of winning suddenly has a 21.43% chance of winning or is now an 11-3 chance. If we take the 14 races that Mr 2-1 didn't win there is a chance that Mr 6-1 (who is now Mr 11-3) will win 3 of these races and thus will still return 3 times $13.
The same logic applies when the 6-1 shot doesn't win increasing the chances of the 2-1 shot winning in the remaining 18 races.

Now I confidently expect someone with more mathmatics and more patience than I have to shoot this argument down in flames but until that time I maintain that IF YOUR RATINGS ARE ACCURATE you have as much chance backing two over the odds horses in one race as you do backing two in two races.

Of course where this breaks down is that most peoples ratings aren't accurate so they find themselves betting into a negative expectation game.
KV

KV,

I do see your point, yes I would bet in consecutive races, but not in the same race, as I'm betting against myself, against my profit.

We are assuming that the ratings are accurate.

Further example is this:

I have a system that provides 40% win POT and around 7% place POT.

I could easily back eachway and get a better return, say $25 e/way, total outlay $50.00, but I am far better off putting that $50 straight on the win.

Eachway I am diminishing the win component.

Even if I find 20% overlay on two runners in a race, if I back them both, I am diminishing the return to 10% as only 1 winner can salute, in consecutive races I can have this result:

Both lose
One wins One Loses
One Loses One Wins
Both Win

The last possiblility is not a factor when backing multiple runners in the same race.

The problem is that most ratings are not accurate enough, therefore cannot distinguish which of the horses are overlays, only that this set of 3 or 5 is if you back them all at "overs".

Take for example the propun ratings (I don't use them, nor do I have experience with them), but personally I would much rather back the Gold Specials etc, than take overs on all rated horses.

I'll bet you'll find they perform far better in the longrun.

Neil may care to correct me on this, but I do know the Gold Specials are supplied with an odds and unit bet suggestion.

These are the identified overs, as opposed to the unidentified overs.

All sound ratings have a place, but it is how one uses them that is the key.

I know of one subscriber who uses the ratings with his own filters successfully.

The problem with ratings [name you fancy] is everyone has access to them and like pp odds they mostly point to favourites that lose most of their races anyway, and do so at punishingly small odds.

Handicapping is the only way to come up with winners that pay well [Western Embrace $18.90w from Purser last Sat. in Brisb. and the Socialist from him the week before were particularly fine handicapping efforts]. Personally and like probably a lot of handicappers, I have no use for ratings at all. They are no more use than Newspaper tips, 'e*****' opinion, pp odds or any other opinion, except for use in messing with systems I guess or at most, a good starting point for handicapping.

Handicappers are looking at class of horse and race, form, trainer, jockey, running style of the horse and will the barrier suit it? Other very important things like gear changes, win cycles [not much point backing a last start winner with a 10% or less WSR] are just a few of the many things that rating producers don't take into account and make it impossible for the word 'accurate' to have anything more than a general at best association with the word 'ratings'.

Hmmm, very grey area crash.

Ratings versus handicapping versus systems.

I think each has a touch of the other ;)

For example one of my systems uses ratings very successfully.

Another of my systems uses handicapping.

Where does it stop being one or the other?

I have successfully used statistics to identify a little known and "poo pooed" concept which is logically sound.

Add this to the ratings and vrooom - we have an outstanding result.

I'll leave you with this:

Entires and Geldings are more consistent, resiliant and stronger than Colts, Fillies and Mares. All things being equal a colt will beat a filly. An Entire or a Gelding will beat a Mare more often than not. When things are not equal in the male favour, they will beat the others remarkably more often than not.
Proven fact.

I do not mean that a superior Mare will get beaten by an average Male.
I do not mean that males have higher or better strike rates in general.

There is a "bounce back", "live up to", final 200m inner strength that is there, when other factors are taken into consideration, that the females and younger horses just don't have. Erratic preparations, eratic form etc. all play a part in what I've researched.

Finally, the handicapper penalises colts over fillies, Entires and Geldings over Mares - all things being equal- yet nobody believes this basic fact.

The weight impost is not enough to even level what I've discovered to an even playing field, so the statement is even stronger.

The role and impact of weight....well that's a whole other story...

Gee I'm having fun today ;)

Follow on questions for anyone that believes betting more than one horse per race is betting against yourself and wasting money :-

You never take more than one quinella/exacta/trifecta combination in any given race?

You never take multiple selections in quadrellas, trebles or race to race doubles?

You would never take a systems entry at lotto as you would be betting against yourself and wasting money?

You would never play more than one number per spin at roulette?

etc..

Wunfluova

Wunfluova, can you find me a race where backing two horses to win will give me 18/1 and they have a realistic chance of winning?

Lotto is betting against yourself, so is any other multi or exotic form of investment. The key factor is "do the odds have sufficient profit in them to make it worthwhile?"

You'll never find quaddie /trifecta/exacta/ lotto return percentages in a race by backing multiple runners.

Give me a race at Flemington where every runner is 1000/1 and I'll bet multiple selections :D

Chrome said: "For example one of my systems uses ratings very successfully".

I covered that Chrome in my last post. They are great for systems as can be pp odds, Newspaper tipsters selection and lots of other available pointers etc. But ratings by themselves as a source of punting selections to bet on [and they can be good use for throwing into exotics as Wunfluova mentioned] would send a rich man broke. Regardless of how good their source. Thee are just too many paradigms involved in a horse race for ratings to replace reasoning.

PS:
Zoe [the handbrake] just piped up, 'all men should be rated long before the starting gates open' :-))

Zoe :) :) :)

Betting on multiple horses
 

Hi all!
Followed this thread with interest, and have a qustion.
I have a very good understanding of the mathematics of dutching, but not the rationale behind it.
For arguments sake, we select four horses for a win (selection method not withstanding) and we win more often than not, ie. we are in profit.
Does this not mean, that one or two or all of our selections will provide a profit? If so, can we not sort out which selection(s) provides the greatest profit and put all the money on it (them)?
I am a 'one horse for the win in a race' man myself, and using my second etc. selections in the multiples.
Thank you

Chrome said :

Chrome, how about I find you two races where backing two horses to win will give you 9/1 each race or three races where backing three horses will give you 6/1 for each race?

You show me yours then I'll show you mine.

Chrome also said (some time ago) :

I take it you have experienced some sort of 'epiphany' since this post, Chrome?

Crash, my problem with my 2c worth was not "enough" words, I understood exactly what you said but can't believe you said it. My comments were much more fundamental than what's been picked up, i.e. a good handicapper like yourself can sort the race, and then rate say top 3, from them you probably have a good S/R overall,... so say over a year maybe the shortest priced of your top 3 will have say a 30% S/R, (showing a POT, cos you're a good judge) the next shortest price a S/R of say 18% (showing a POT again, cos youre still a good judge) and the longest priced of your top 3 , remember over a year or more is say 12% (again showing a POT)

I've just picked the figures out of the air to prove a point by the way.

So your 2nd and 3rd investments in all the races are NOT wasted at all cos they have all showed a POT. over a years investments!!!!!

Not backing to prices here just level stakes to win, if you sorted them by rating rather than price, then same scenario, though me thinks that the S/R will be closer matched. i.e Top Rated-v- 2nd Top-v- 3rd Top

BUT I agree that if one is SO GOOD that only betting on the Top Rater shows the gretaest profit OVER TIME every time then yes why bother backing anything else, just increase the bets to about a Mil or so, hee hee!

Chrome also said (some time ago) :

I take it you have experienced some sort of 'epiphany' since this post, Chrome?

As I stated, I take my top rated selection with a number of horses in the second leg to get average odds of OVER the actual win price alone.

This is cream when I collect, not the basis for profit.

I primarily bet the win component.


Crash,

Why isn't ratings handicapping?

Hi!
I am confused!
I have done my own handicapping-rating for many years and I call it 'rating'.
I look at the past performances of horses and rate them accordingly.
Now, what is it, handicapping or rating?

Or is it all just semantics?
Cheers

Well Racing Victoria uses ratings based handicapping and there are sites that discuss using statistics to formulate ratings.

So aren't we all confused a little more now ???

hahah, yes, yet another bad choice of words, when I used the words "Ratings" I meant the horse that Crash had rated on top, 2nd 3rd etc.by his "Handicapping"

NOT Ratings in the accepted sense. Phew!!

PS. I've rated a few "women" akin to a sack of spuds, and definitly wern't worth 3 beers, so there you go! hee hee!

There seems to be some confusion about the difference between ratings and handicapping. Most ratings out there are mechanical, and mostly done by computer with some sort of excel program. Even simple personal ratings are pretty much mechanical, were points are allocated for certain exposed facts regarding each runner in a race. This is the science of ratings, not the art of handicapping.

There are many factors in handicapping a race that require subjective judgement which makes the task as much an art as a science, requiring many personal judgement calls that can't be quantified in numerical values.

One of the most important aspects of good handicapping and indeed the personal selection process is imagining how a race will pan out in the running for a particular track, distance, barrier and jockey combo. The selection your looking at has the science part well in his favour [won at track and in the condt., weight, class etc], however his running style is a back-marker [or swooper to some punters] and he has drawn barrier 3 in a 1600m race at Doomben in a field of 14 runners.

Now getting into the head of your jockey: Barrier 1 and 5 have natural leaders in them. The horse in 1 is going to easily go up on your inside, but the runner in five is going to go around you and there are 3 on-pacers in the race that are all going to try to move up with these two and then there are several mid-pacers and a couple more back-markers behind you that are going to make it highly likely that you end up boxed in the middle of the pack, at a pace that doesn't suit [at the big Eagle Farm track, it could be a different ball game].
You'll be riding for luck and your name is not Beadman .....No, I'll pass on that selection thank you and wait until an alley is drawn closer to the outside in a race that suits for that runner. Try and put that scenario into numbers you can add up into a rating.

Being able to read a race is where the money is [of course I often get it wrong to]. I painted the race picture for Ice Chariots 2 big group wins in Brisbane [before the race] during the carnival on the other forum page under the OLD Sat. section. He is a natural back-marker and had barrier 17 in both races where there was some good pace on from some quick leaders. My grandmother [long dead] could have brought him home to win from such an easy rider task and perfect situation. Nice odds too and many good handicappers collected easy money.

You can buy those canvases with hundreds of marked areas, each having a number that corresponds to a certain colour and when they are complete, at least from a distance they look OK. However, You wouldn't like to try to make a living from painting them. You'd starve. There is art in Handicapping, not just quantitative science.

Morning Crash, yes in the scenario that you depicted; only that personal touch will provide the winner, but not all races are like that are they, the plain fact is that the "mechanical ratings" can and do pick the winner like clockwork, some better than others, but around 60% or so in top 3. In fact just taking the pre-postfav & 2nd fav as you say chucks up the winner 50% of the time without any knowledge of racing whatso-ever, and pretty near breaks even when backing best tote, though pretty boring as well I admit.

Not taking anything away from your skill, the thrill of assessing a race and it turns out they way you predicted, certainly is a great feeling, and I suppose why we all into backing horses in the first place.

Have a good one.

You too Party.

Crash - Blimey ! No wonder you get up early