I think the Doc has got you bang to rights on this one Crash. As he says "From the example given you wrongly presume both punters (all punters) lose." Your quote outlined above shows what he says is correct.
Punters who (successfully) punt in order to win money don't have the odds against them. If they win long term they obviously have the odds in their favour, so you are assuming your fictitious punters are losers.
If a punter has a winning system and he bets on more races which fit that system he stands to win more. If a punter has a losing system he stands to lose more from betting more races. It's simple.

KV

This is an example of why you should always read over what you have written to make sure it is really what you wanted to say.

What you actually said Crash, is : All punters lose, so those that bet more will lose more. Yet "pro punters" are "pro punters" because they bet less, hence making a profit.

I am obviously not alone in completely disagreeing with your logic here...

All three of you are arguing against yourselves. You have read what I've said. Ignored it and then argued against something else [which I never said, but you have said] so you could argue against it.

Did I say all punters lose ? No I didn't [not 'basically' either], but it gives your arguments legs and even I would disagree with that statement, So please, either shoot me down with the hard logic of maths or remain smug in 'convenient logic' [only relies on belief not facts] you present to justify poor punting habits.

I'm talking about the cold hard facts of odds here [maths] not personalities or punting types or even betting habits or styles. What do I have to do, reduce it to tossing pennies [heads or tails] so you will get my point about the maths ?

What will I get in reply ? I bet it will be more opinion. Perhaps even some fuzzy logic [I have a new washing machine with 'fuzzy logic'. It's a piece of crap] :-)

Of course, I should have seen it, you're right as always and we three are wrong. I wish I could get a bet on you never admitting you're wrong, No, it'd be too short a price.
Your first post here looked to be an ill thought out bunch of rubbish, anyone who could be bothered answering it could see that and told you so, no maths needed. Guess we'll just have to suppose you knew what you meant but don't explain things very well, that's about the kindest thing I can come up with.
Do keep posting though, it gives us something to think about.

KV

Sorry about your washing machine crash!
No need to name the brand, but if it is what I think it is, our company is partly to blame, although our tech department pointed out at the time, that no matter how good our software is it can't make crappy hardware perform better!

Marcus.

[QUOTE

I'm talking about the cold hard facts of odds here [maths] not personalities or punting types or even betting habits or styles. What do I have to do, reduce it to tossing pennies [heads or tails] so you will get my point about the maths It's
a piece of crap] :-)[/QUOTE] $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ CRASH CRASH CRASH it works like this the sniper has one chance from 1km the other bloke has 40 at 100m,end result is no different,they both end up feeding ther family tonight,,,,,,,,,but mamma allways said a machine gunner is what sniper wants to be............hope everyone enjoyed the day......slowman.......

Sorry Crash, can't agree with you on this one.

If a punter is out to make money ( and you seem to believe that no punter is actually out to make money) , the person going with the larger number of bets is probably seeking high turnover/ small profit margin./higher income.

Crash I have a method that seems to pick one winner in two...but it can take a year to come up with those two bets. Its riskier just backing the two selections heavily and trying to make all ones profit from those two bets in a year, than taking many many more bets for a smaller percentage profit..but much more revenue...

the above is precisely why some professional punters do both. Do you invest all of your money on one company share and hang you hopes on it, or do you spread your risk over a portfolio?

Thansk for the interesting post though..had me thinking..and that is good.

All this hostility for nought.

Crash is kind of right.


The more bets a punter has in a negative expectation game, the greater the chance of loss. One can defy the odds, but not forever.

Conversely, the less bets a punter has in a positive expectation game, the less the chance of a profit.

Although the odds don't change, like a coin flip, the greater the exposure to the game, the more likely the overall % loss or profit will result.

Why does this happen?

Take for example Kenchar, with his "hit-make a profit-run" approach.

There is more to this than simply the odds, there is the confidence factor as well. One is more likely to make a sound decision when having the first bet of the day, than when chasing a deep loss.

The only evidence lies in the number of times a punter was ahead for the day and gave it all back by betting more.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 433,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/03/2026
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

924

quote: " ( and you seem to believe that no punter is actually out to make money)",

Where do you folk get this drivel ? How do you deduct that from anything I have ever said anywhere? Follow my type....it's nonsense, it's not what I believe at all. Strewth, talk about putting words into a bloke's mouth.

and ...."the person going with the larger number of bets is probably seeking high turnover/ small profit margin./higher income".

What, a punter can't obtain high turn over/small profit margin/higher income with a smaller amount of larger bets [high $ turnover]?

Oh boy, I need a holiday.

Chrome,
Thanks, finally some insight here. You get my drift.
Horse racing is a mostly negative expectation game [for 95% of us anyway], regardless of the personal and often collective, positive spin we try to put on it. We have to work out ways to reduce the odds against us and hopefully, eventually get the odds in our favor by whatever means. When the odds are against us, the more we take them the more we will lose.

If we have X amount of concentration energy available per day for form study, stats analysis or whatever we do to choose our selections, and we divide that energy into say 8 lots, each used to select 8 winners from eight races in a day, we minimize our profit potential compared to dividing that energy into say 3 lots to select 3 winners from 3 races and having larger bets. We maximize profit potential by better utilization of our energy resources. Combine that with whatever else we are doing to improve our odds [finding genuine underlays etc.], and we increase our potential profitability.

I'm not going into the details of the random chance factor that is very much present in horse racing, but even an idiot can work out that the more of it we introduce into our betting, the less our profit potential is.

We all know that Casino odds are against us, do we increase our profit potential but having a 100 small bets rather than a few large ones? Of course we ****** don't. The exact opposite is true. Mathematically speaking, our best chance of winning there would be to have one large bet only, but that would make for a very boring visit to the Casino . The reason I say that for most of us, profit is not our ultimate reason for punting, is that none of us would be happy with one bet only. I certainly wouldn't be. 3 bets in a punting day though, is often OK by me nowadays.

Hi Dale.

Quote:
"Would you agree that every favorite has the same percentage chance as the one before it?
ie; if the favorite has not got up for 5 races it is no more likely than its every day percentage to get up in the next".

No I certainly wouldn't agree with that. You are talking about an equation that has never belonged on a race track. Random chance odds that are always present in the racing game make that an impossible axiom. Anything is possible. The fav. might win the next and the next and the next.