I agree with you shaun there is nothing wrong with putting equal amounts on any number of selections.Every punter is entitled to do precisely as he/she chooses.I have no argument with anyones method,and wish all punters good luck.

However,putting equal amounts on (any number of) multiple selections is most certainly not dutching.It's something else.

Hey Wesmip1....

you still make money on them, even if you "give them away" .... I don't think the collective punting power of this forum would "rape" you of any "profits"

Good luck fella.....

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

Stix,

What you say is true but putting up my tips takes time and I don't have enough of that as it is ( with following the races, playing poker, betting on the dogs, doing the form, etc ) .

Good Luck.

Come work with me.... problem solved !!

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!

I'll like to give a IMHO of Dutching. A betting system I have had numerous encounters with mostly poor results. Whether that had more to do with the fact that when I have turned to Dutching or betting on more than one horse a race, which seems to be the main effort of Dutching rather than exact and true Dutching [hard because very close to jump SP's are required and that is not always practical unless all a punter has to do all day is sit in front of a PC], my normal 1 bet per. race method has been having a bad trot and I'm getting desperate for a win without working out the [true] sums of the endeavor.

My experience backing more than one runner in as race is a zero sum game. Look at it this way; In a 12 horse race if you back one runner that you think has a good chance of winning [lets say 25%] at say $6. Do you double your chances of winning by taking another runner who also is at $6 [25% chance of winning] and considered the other main chance? Well of course you don't. Both runners can lose and your chance of a win by either runner is not 50% but poor maths. If one of them wins you have really taken $3 on a 25% chance as both horses still have a 75% chance of losing, independently of each other, except you have 2 chances of one of them winning which increases your chances from 1 in 12 to 2 in 12, a small improved difference in % chance of a win [not 50% or 6 chances in 12]. A big underlay. Do it with 3 or more runners and the problem compounds [zero sum game].

I would have 1 bet on the $6/25% chance and the same on another race with a $6/25% chance [this is an example for simplicity]. Why? Because a multiple bet loss of 2 bets rules out the possibility of 1 of those bets being used in another race on a $6/25% chance. I maximize my percentage chances of winning by single win bets at much better odds overall in the long run and avoid the zero sum game trap of flawed maths by multiple win betting in one race.

Even strict Dutching [price according to odds] has the a similar problem as the above example. The more horses you throw into the Dutch, the higher the SR required and lower the overall odds from the combined bets in one race.
Yes, you are improving your chances of a 'win', but only by dramatically reducing you combined odds without improving you % chances of a win to make up for the odds reduction, because the % chance of a win for each runner is not an additive maths equation. That's what sucks punters into the illusion, they wrongly think it is.

One thing always seems to be lacking from proponents of Dutching or multiple win betting and that is the maths reality. What on the surface seems to be a swing, is in fact a big slide and that's why you never see the real maths.

At least any system that you have seen. Doesn't mean there isn't one.



I always look at what I am going to return on my bet, and not what I put on it. This being the case, your suggestion of equal amounts bet on each selection would basically prove the shorter priced bets to be redundant. All your money is being made on the longer priced horses getting up, because you are much more aggressive in backing them.

Your 3 selections:
$2.50
$3.00
$100

You put $50 on each but only win when the $100 pop gets up. You actually lose money on the horse that is most probably going to win the race.

If you are getting value on all 3 selections, then in the long run it won't really matter.
But.
If this is the case, would it not be better to just put the lot on the $100 horse? I mean this horse that wins just better than 1 in 100 races, you are betting to return $5000 yet the horse that will win ~40% of its races, you are only betting to return $125.

For your $150 investment, by putting it all on the longest horse, you are betting to return $15000. Or by taking all 3, you are only betting to return $5275.
Surely you would be making alot more money by sticking with the longshot.

My point here is that I agree with dutching, not neccessarily backing longshots.

Somebody on this very forum once stated that if you bet each way you are halving your win odds and risking twice as much as you should. Surely Dutch betting has the same risks. I could never come to grips with it but then to each his own.

Beagle,

The $2 to $5 SP range can have some surprisingly good place odds and $3 to $8 in stakes [or cups] races up can have some great place prices, both situations often offer up to 40-50% of the win price. In those circumstances a place only bet can be good value.

I agree however about your statement for e/w betting in most situations. It is poor maths. I missed a $17 winner the other day I had for the win, It came second and the place price was $2.30 !!! Any units for the place in an e/w bet are usually better off in another race for the win.

while hardly being on the "dutching bandwagon" facts are, all maths aside, there are many races that are not suited to this type of betting, & the odd few that are. its all about selection, of both the right race & right nags.

in selecting the right races i would suggest keeping & eye & ear out for goodish sized fields where "the dogs are barking", the louder the better. if there are worse bets than these in racing, i aint seen too many.

as for the right nags, they tend to pick themselves in such a race.

G'day Fellow Forum Posters

Just as an aside to Dutching in certain fields, what criteria do you use to judge a race as a "good betting" race where yor betting the WIN or E/Way for arguments sake?

You always hear (and see on posts) people saying this race is a GOOD betting race or that was a BAD race to have a bet on etc....

I would imagine some of the criteria would be:

• Class
• Number of Runners
• Number of First Starters/Resumers

Just wondering as I don't really analyse a race on a "good/bad betting race" basis, I try and find a horse I think (IMHO) will win the race - I don't really discount - say Maidens, races with more than 3 resumers/first starters etc... perhaps I could incorporate this thinking into my assessments.....

Thanks In Advance

__________________
Stix
.......Giddy Up..... !!