No, what I mean is you probally should've bet less.

The amount you stake on each bet should be related to the odds of the payout, and the size of your edge.

Also, your've bet on alot of BIG faves, which are hardly ever good bets. The bookies will shade these guys (ie offer a lower price than they should) as the public will unload money on them (and the bookies will clean up if the big favourites lose).

Using sportstab prices, this is what edge you needed to justify those stakes:

"$1000 James Hird Top Score for Essendon"
- 12% edge.
Ie he'd have to win this at least 70% of the time for your bet to be mathematically justified.

"$1000 Rewoldt Top Score for Saints"
- 5.6%.
He'd have to win this 82.5% of the time.

"$500 Riccuto to finish Top 5"
- 25%.
He'd have to win nearly 36% of the time.

"$2500 Tredrea to finish Top 5"
- 12.5%
He'd have to win 90% of the time.

As to winning all, even if you did have an edge this large on all of your bets, the chances you'll win all 4 are just 18.7%. You'd have a 51% chance of winning all the shorter priced 3. This is only if you had these sized advantages. In reality, you probally have much less or no edge at all.

Your most likely result is 3/4, with the shorter priced 3 all winning and Riccuto losing. You'll profit not far off half the time, the rest of the time you'll lose quite a bit (more than you won).

Why'd you choose these bets anyway?