Betting more than 1 horse per race for the same price is a nonsense of course. I can't believe how little punters in general understand percentages [odds] and how they work.

Everyone has a win/loss bet ratio and an average win price [or average loss for 95% of us]. Whether one has 50 bets in 50 races or 50 bets [5 bets per race] in 10 races, we still end up with a win/loss bet ratio and average price.
How does having more bets in one race improve our winning chances or increase our average winnings [or losses] per race ? Of course it doesn't and if anyone thinks it does, they would also believe 2+2=5 or are indulging in 'convenient' logic, which of course leaves out the maths of % [odds]. 8-)

Following some of the 'logic' here, if we win 1 in 4 races [25% average] from having 1 bet per race, do we now win 4 in 4 races [100%] by betting 4 horses per race? Of course not, but following some of the logic here and the unspoken maths. it alludes too, we should.

The only ratio that can be increased by betting more than one horse per race is the number of races you have a winner in, not number of winners.

Dutch betting doesn't improve our number of winners nor our winnings either. We might win more races but odds [percentages] decrease proportionally to the number of horses we Dutch. I'm talking long term averages here, not a collection of past winning examples [graph spikes] that show higher than average winnings.

Please present your maths if you disagree, not [convenient] logic or examples, because this thread's question is about maths not opinion.

you are absolutely right Crash. Dutching multiple horses in a race is not a short cut to winning.

Essentially you are backing odds on, so why you might find more winners you need more winners to balance the book.

If you can't find winners, then Dutching or any form of staking won't help.

Much of the above applies to laying single horses. Just because it seems easier to pick losers making a profit is just as hard, because you are backing the whole field against one horse at very short odds.

The only way to get on the right side would be to Dutch every runners when the book is less than 100% and lay every runner when it is greater than 100%

If it were possible to know the exact odds of a horse wiining then it would be relatively simple to make money. For example if at a party someone suggested simulating a horse race with the roll of a dice & offered evens for the 1, 2/1 for the 2, 3/1 for the 3 etc, most people might get into the spirit and bet the 2 because its their favourite number. But we are clever sods and know that the 5 is a break even situation so will leave it alone. The 6 is in our favour so we could back that every race or we could lay the 1,2,3 or 4 horse (The 1 being the best proposition.)

In the long run we will win without even considering who the winner might be, because we know the correct odds of each participant is 5/1

Incidentally the percentages for these prices add up to 158.94% a massive over round and we can still win. The person running the game is sure to clean up but only if he gets wise to us and refuses our bets.

Right thats my homework left for marking. I guess most of you lot are up now, but it is 1.00 am here and I am off to bed.

Good analogy Dolus.
Anyway, the question of multiple betting or NOT, just comes down to how you select your horses to bet. If you've cracked the secret of which day a certain trainer "is on fire" and he has two in the race then maybe you'll be betting both. Maybe it's an "overs" type thing (you want 100% and today there are 3 or it's only 1 in this race). Or you've decide to bet EVERY time on your top 3 picks regardless of price. Or just the highest rated. Whatever.
If you are betting multiple runners it must be most (or all) of the money (which would then be level stakes) on whichever "type" of horse has proven most reliable, POT-wise. The "type" might be an actual "type of horse" or a "price" How often in this thread have I read that "on the days when shorties come you get ************ all" or "when the fifth selection gets there it's a bonanza" Check your records; are all those shorties (causing your bank to bleed) being subsidised by the longshots which should've had even more on them?? What about "reverse" betting (putting MORE on the longer prices or at least the most profitable price-range) if you can't bring yourself to discard some of your multiple picks?
Say you've been betting a 2-1, a 5-1 and 9-1 chance in each race and dutching (ie $10 on the shortie, $5 on the middle and $3 on the longer). That's $18 bet for $30 return. You notice that for each ten shortie bets you are getting 4 winners (POT 20%), for each ten at 5-1, 1winner (-40%) and for each ten at 9-1 you get 2 winners (100% POT). You should put the lot (ie $18 which is then a LEVEL stake) on the longies from now on OR maybe split it between the shorties and the longies (preferencing the better POT 9-1 shots) but DITCH the middle as those ones are LOSING YOU MONEY. Or if you insist that there MUST be three bets, do it thus $10 on the 9-1 shots ,$5 on the 2-1 shots and only $3 on THE WEAKEST LINK, the 5-1 horses which have been losing 40% for you. Should it continue as before you will either be still getting A) !00% POT on the longies BUT with six times the money on them (if you chose the "whole $18" approach) or B) 100% POT with $10 on them AND still 20% POT on the shorties (but with $5 bet instead of $3).
However you look at it, if you bet multiples it has to be bigger on the MORE, and biggest on the MOST profitable (as seen by your results). Cheers.

There is no reason if you are getting overs on your selections that you can't back multiple runners.
If you rate the field and find that you can get overs on four horses in the race, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't back them all. Unless your ratings are up to shiit....

Do not as previous posters have mentioned, just increase the number of horses you back just to increase your strike rate. If you are getting unders on the horses, then all you will achieve is to go broke quicker. I guess though, this may be a good thing if you have a designated bank, and will stop after that bank is gone. After all, then you will have more time to do other things than lose money.

My opinion is that you should dutch any selections. The shorter priced horses will always win more times than the longer priced horses. So you should bet that way.

Holy Batman, are you 2 guys following me around ?

OK, which one of you guy's is Hey Chee? Or is it both of you?

i dont recall anyone suggesting that backing more than 1 runner in a race was a "short cut to winning", simply because that is not what it is, or pretends to be, speaking only for myself of course.

what it is (or can be) is an alternative betting method which when applied to the CORRECT race can be as worthwhile as any other form of nag investment.

someone suggest that by backing more than 1 nag you are effectivley betting odds on - well i am sure many a mug does that, just as a similar crowd line up to back the next $1.50 "certainty" tipped by john, dick & ************ harry.

select the right races & nags, dont dutch, dont bet odds on, & the "overs" that everyone has had a recent opinion on are certainly there, whether you are backing nag 1 or 5.

Yes you are right crash. Everything that people do is because of you, in fact the universe revolves around you.
Get over yourself.

And you obviously have such a narrow view of humor, you don't recognize a 'send up' that is plain as daylight to anyone else.