Several years ago one of my friends said he was Field Betting every day with the TAB and was making excellent profits. He sent me a print-out of his bets covering several months and it showed very good results. I did not look too closely at it as I had no interest in that type of betting.

But now looking again at the print-out it strongly suggests that the results would be even better if he limited the fields to a maximum of 11 runners (and had bet with Betfair). Unfortunately I cannot contact him as I would ask him how much he would increase his betting or to what extent if he had restricted the fields to 11 runners.

Has anyone had any experience with this type of betting or have any suggestions as to increasing the stakes after a losing race?

I'm interested in checking it out "on paper".

Thanks.
Michael.

Explain to me what you mean by field betting be cause it is not possible to back the field for a profit.

Hi,


there are days when backing every winner and every looser will yeald a profit. One such day was yestrday, (Monday 10/112008), over all its a terible lose however 100% strike rate.

Fun aside most days are about 20% loss, that I can see when I run my day end routines.

Michal

Occasionally, if I think there's a race with a good chance of an upset result, I back the whole field. I did it with the Melbourne Cup this year and made a profit. Wouldn't have had Viewed any other way. But I certainly wouldn't recommend doing it in every race.

I've often wondered about small fields though. You know the ones. Where there are only 5 runners or something and the rank outsider gets up paying $25. It seems to happen so often in small fields, or is that just an illusion? The figures probably don't back it up at all.

Shaun, you're right. But my friend used a loss-chasing method which performed very well.

Sportz, according to the print-out, the fields with a maximum of 11 runners provided a higher rate of instances when the TAB divvy paid more than the amount of starters (and outlay) per race than the races with 12-plus runners. Also, the progressive increase to the outlay was not as harsh.

I have been testing today's races "on paper" with the same progression method my friend used but it has not fared well. Of the 12 races I've so far looked at, only 2 races paid more than the outlay. The faves have had an above average strike rate. I'll continue to monitor the upcoming races.

How great would it be if you could make something like that work!!!
No form, ahh that would be the good life!
What about just backing teh top five regardless? Your still gonna have a high strike rate (80% or so if my memory is correct) , but more likely to make a profit on more races (all you need is a $5 plus winner). Still, I think it would be hard yakka making that work, would need a pretty aggressive staking plan, and then the days where the short priced horses continually get up would pretty destroy you.

I hope my friend (wherever he is) didn't bet the system today - it was a big loser, even with fields of more than 11 runners.

Maybe tomorrow it might redeem itself where ousiders have a good day..

How about if we were selective and only picked races where the fav was expected to be more than (say ) $3.00 and at least eliminate the killer short priced faves.
So work on only 2 rules
Races where there are x amount of runners, and
Fav price =>$3.
Possible 3rd rule back top half of the field (pricewise) (one of your old ones I think Michael?)
Cheers.........Manc.

I remember playing round with a system such as that, looking for races where the fav is vulnerbale. I think I had the rule that the fav must be 3.50 or more, and then you would back as many horses as you could, usnig the second fav as a saver, ie if second fav was showing $4, back that and three others. I was only paper testing it, but it went really well, until one day it hit a horror run, where either the fav or a rank outsider got up for a large period. Might have to look at it again, and apply a divisor target betting plan and see how we go.

Mancunian, the price of the fave hasn't too much importance because I remember asking my friend if omitting odds-on races might be worthwhile. But he replied he had some very large dividends with these races which put the sequence into profit. He did say odds-on faves are mainly in races with not too many runners, so when they win the pain is not too severe. But maybe he was lucky that they occured early in the sequence which would not have caused too much damage, but late in the sequence could've easily killed it. Yesterday there were some very short-priced winners.

However, like you and unlike my friend, I would feel more comfortable if there was a minimum price for the fave. Its something I might look at.