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!

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.

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.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 412,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

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.

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.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 412,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

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?

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