Maths exactly
 

Ok a lot of talk about running doubles etc. I ask this question as I haven't done a lot of personal research but I do have my suspicions.

Lets take race to race doubles as some suggest, if we have a given SR and a given average price, wouldn't it therefore transpire that the outcome would be exactly the same as betting level stakes??? I suspect so.....BUT

Also though, lets take a given selection method with say 30% winners (usually the fav.) and then expand this into taking the top 3 in the market, so we have race to race doubles 3x3 = 9 units, now we know that 1 in 3 will win the first race and that 1 in3 will win the 2nd race, so we should average 1 winning double every 9 times with an average return of 2-1 (hopefully) = $3x$3 so we break even, BUT we can also expect that sometimes we have 1 winning Fav. + 1 winning 2nd Fav., and also sometimes 1 winnimng fav + 1 winning 3rd fav, etc etc.to the point where we have 1 winning 3rd fav x 1 winning 3rd fav

I would be interested if anyone has explored this idea????

I understand what your saying, and I haven't looked at it, but I think it would be an overall loser still. I'll take a look though seee what I can find using betfair.

Would you run it at the meeting race to race or just race to race based on time order ? Im thinking race to race by time order could be hard in practice.

I just ran this on a few meetings by hand and every meeting was a loser.

Even a running double of $4 and $5 hardly returns enough to pay for one losing bet and there are just too many of them.

Happy New Year guys.

Interesting idea, I found that you are leveraging the stake but not the odds.
The odds aren't enough to cover the actual hits, the same as UB found.

Last year (hehe) I looked at this in regard to allups and laying out to cover stake.
No dice, it is only the stake you are trying to cover and you lose it too often.

An all up on two even money faves.

outcomes to $10 stake.

a) WIN WIN +30
b) LOSE LOSE -$10
c) WIN LOSE -$10 (stake don't count profit)
d) LOSE WIN -$10

b,c & d as a set will happen just as often as a) unfortunately.

Yes as suspected the loss looks as though it would be about the same as backing all 3 @ level stakes.

But really that's my point, lets say we have SR of 30% and a POT of 10%, so instead of backing @ levels we make each bet the first leg of a running double,

without actually doing the exercise I'd guess the POT would remain at 10%?

Chrome, in my example I just guessed that the average price for the winning fav is about 2-1, would that be right?