This plan is based on the assumption that one normally picks more shorter priced winners rather than longer priced winners.

The O/L varies dpending on its price at jump time.
The percentage is the current bank figure, NOT ucing the outlay due to bank reducing
e.g.with a $100 bank you would work a percentage on this amount , for the whole day, win or loose.
$2.00=6%
2.50=4%
3.00=3%
3.50=2.4%
4.00=2%
5.00=1.5%
7.00=11%
10.00=0.7%
12.00=0.5%

It could be looked as a more controlled version of level stakes betting.

__________________
Cheers.

Hi Bhagwan.

Good advice, it looks astonishingly similar to the answer to a question I posted on my website.

http://www.form-pro.com.au/Q&A.html

Sounds like a sensible plan to me :smile:

I should have added, you really ought to reference things you take from elsewhere.


[ This Message was edited by: osulldj on 2003-11-14 16:24 ]

Isn't this the exact reverse to obtaining value?

The horses that salute at >$5.00 or even >$10.00 can be where the profit lies in some cases, so you are gaining no advantage in obtaining overs by reducing bet size.

If all the profit comes from horses <$5.00, then you'd be better of reducing the number of bets to those horses only.

Comments?

Hi Chrome,

The way I explain it is that the price of the runner has nothing to do with it's value..whats important is the difference between that and the price it should be.

You can use such a betting plan against your own prices...or the markets prices.

If you price a horse at even money then you should dedinitely have more on it than a horse you price at $5.

Also, I can guarantee that for 99.99999% of people that have had enough bets to form reasonable conclusions...that the horses they back at $2 have won more than the horses they back at $5 and they have won more than the horses they have backed at $10. It is inefficient then to have the same amount on each and more efficient to stake according to the winning chances.

I agree with your first statement osulldj, but certainly the bulk of the profit would come from the longer priced horses, if not then it's senseless betting on them at all. It would significantly boost both the POT and profit by leaving them out.
If this does not do the above, then by decreasing bet size on this price range is robbing yourself of overlays.

Just my opinion.

Could not agree more, osulldj. Spot on.

If you stake according to (your priced) winning chance, you would have more on a horse at 10/1 if you rated it a 3/1 chance as opposed to a horse you have rated a 8/1 chance, also getting 10/1.

Having said that, if your "system" is a winner over time, I could understand an argument to increase your stake greater than your "system's" normal allocation, where the margin between your rated price and the price on offer is higher than "normal" expectations.
_________________
All the best from the West

Sandgroper :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Sandgroper on 2003-11-14 02:46 ]

chrome,

I understand what you are trying to say and your response is natural to both Bhagwan and Osulldj. What they are saying is correct but is easily misinterpreted as meanining: The greater the 'value' the smaller the bet. What is in fact being said is the exact opposite. I think you are confusing price with value [?]

Cheers.



[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-11-14 02:47 ]

[ This Message was edited by: puntz on 2003-11-26 18:30 ]

Well howdy crash and puntz :smile: My excuse is there’s a 3 hours difference – What’s yours? :wink:

_________________
All the best from the West

Sandgroper :smile:

[ This Message was edited by: Sandgroper on 2003-11-14 02:58 ]

Hi all,

Well I am early to bed and early to rise.

Puntz, A 2/1 shot will get up five times as often as a 10/1 [statisticly] but that does not mean that will happen when you have you money on those horses.

The point being put by this thread is that the greater the value the greater the bet.
If you believe a horse has only a 10/1 chance of winning then your bet would be smaller than on a horse you believe has a 2/1 chance of winning.

Cheers.